Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Charged Marine's Widow an Early Termination Fee

In a decision that was reversed as soon as someone with half a brain in their PR department learned about it, Verizon charged a widow a $350 early termination fee. After the death of her marine husband, Michaela Brummund decided to move back to her home town to be with her family. Verizon doesn't offer any coverage in the small town so Michaela tried to cancel her contract, only to be hit with an early termination fee. From the article: "'I called them to cancel. I told them the situation with my husband. I even said I would provide a death certificate,' Michaela said."

344 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. From the hereafter by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I hear you? Good.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:From the hereafter by Mondorescue · · Score: 3, Funny

      Semper Fee.

    2. Re:From the hereafter by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      +1, funny;
      -1, tasteless.

      Of course VZW is a bunch of cocks, so:
      +1, believable (sadly)

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. Simple really... by unts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.

    1. Re:Simple really... by papasui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand just because her husband dies doesn't mean the world stops. I'm sure she received a life insurance check to cover these type of expenses.

    2. Re:Simple really... by unts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is true, but Verizon could operate with a certain sense of... decorum. Plus, I doubt they lose that much money in early termination due to deceased individuals.

    3. Re:Simple really... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cost of lost business to Verizon due to bad publicity > Profit to be made from ETF

    4. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, lots of people die every day for lots of reasons, some people jerk off with a belt around their neck and go too far. Other people try to have sex with a barnyard animal and get kicked in the head. Yet others get into a car wreck because they are sexting an underage boy and die in a fire.

      But *this* woman's husband died serving our country, while getting paid less than a garbage man in most large cities.Whether you agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, our military has a long and honorable history of protecting us (and much of the rest of the world), and when a soldier dies in combat, a certain reverence (or at least decorum) is in order. What Verizon did was just tacky, and I am glad they reversed course.

    5. Re:Simple really... by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ehh, I can see both sides.

      On the one hand, hey, that was the contract.

      On the other, your husband just died. You have to deal with the arrangements, family, cancelling everything else he had, all on top of grieving. That's when Verizon basically says, I don't care about your loss, we want the ETF and here is your bill.

      That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it. Then again, from a business perspective, I'd probably just ask for a fax of a death certificate and immediately close the account with no penalties. In the end, the population on earth is growing, there are more people buying plans (as a whole on earth) than there are dying (I would assume anyways, makes sense). They will get a contract to replace the death soon enough.

    6. Re:Simple really... by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you will find that life insurance policies rarely cover death from "war or war-like activities", which is why the State typically has to support those injured in these activities.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    7. Re:Simple really... by danny_lehman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congratulations, You have successfully completed de facto school of business.

    8. Re:Simple really... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I did read my "7 day MBA" book in a weekend ;)

    9. Re:Simple really... by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I made the unfortunate choice to be a residential property manager (in the USA). There are a number of provisions for protection of our troops for rentals. Military personnel can terminate leases when they're called up for duty, they are legally protected against being discriminated against for their military service, there are special provisions for eviction if someone is actively serving, and I believe there are also special protections on foreclosures and collections when they own their own home.

      This is as it should be, in my strong opinion. Contracts are contracts, but the law supercedes contractual terms. Law exists to protect the rights of citizens, and military service personnel are certainly very worthy of this type of protection. If there is not legal protection for something like a cell phone service contract, there should be. And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    10. Re:Simple really... by demontechie · · Score: 1

      Seems like a maximum of 400k is a rather limited amount of life insurance if you're planning to simultaneously cover your lost income for your spouse and also plan to put your kid(s) through schools that could cost upwards of $100k/year 18 years from now (with the current rates of college tuition inflation). Are there other options that service members have in addition to SGLI?

    11. Re:Simple really... by silentsteel · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not offered. It is a requirement, at least it was when I was in the Corps.

      --
      I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
    12. Re:Simple really... by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision.

      But when the executive decision came down, Verizon ended up making it right, which is how things are supposed to work, right? And they are "assholes" for that?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    13. Re:Simple really... by GaryOlson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The executive decision did not come down until a prominent news agency made an inquiry. Otherwise, I quite expect no executive would have ever taken an interest to make a decision.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    14. Re:Simple really... by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a word: yes

      If "low paid drones" don't feel empowered enough to use their head on a very obvious issue, that's a management problem. And the blame for that is correctly placed at the top of the organizational pyramid. I stand by my remarks

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    15. Re:Simple really... by cawpin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it doesn't mean the world stops but moving to a place where they don't offer coverage, by itself, lets you out of the contract with no ETF.

    16. Re:Simple really... by Theovon · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Verizon is a lot like Foxconn, except that their employees aren't the only ones they induce to commit suicide. If they waived the early termination fee for every death they were responsible for, they'd be running at a major loss.

    17. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly! If Verizon lets her off the hook, people will be killing their relatives all over just to avoid early termination fees!

    18. Re:Simple really... by geekboy642 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're allowed to choose how much coverage you get. As of a few years ago, it went from a minimum of roughly 250k up to somewhere near a million, with correspondingly expensive premiums.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    19. Re:Simple really... by David+Jao · · Score: 5, Informative

      That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.

      A big part of the problem is that Verizon is allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, but the consumer is not. In fact, it was such a change to the contract that led to this incident:

      "Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device. " Source

      Interestingly, there is an official exception for deployed military personnel, but (apparently) not for soldiers killed in action.

      Of course, one could argue "don't sign a contract that allows Verizon to change the terms" but every consumer contract these days contains such a clause, so what do you do?

    20. Re:Simple really... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "On the one hand, hey, that was the contract."

      Which fails to be a legal document when you die. The end.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    21. Re:Simple really... by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      "It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."

      You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.

    22. Re:Simple really... by RazorSharp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But how can you personify and hyperbolize the actions of corporations when you look at it so realistically? That doesn't make for a good news story.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    23. Re:Simple really... by Ashcrow · · Score: 1

      Keep I'm mind the company made a decision to use low paid drones and use them as the customer face of the company. They did do the right thing in the end but one should not have to appeal to the media to get proper treatment.

    24. Re:Simple really... by paradxum · · Score: 1

      i think it's news only because most people think that the early termination fee is total BS.

      I understand that they are recouping the full cost of the phone, but a 2 year lockin/early term fee is excessive and just a way to lock a person into a certain carrier.

      IMHO, vendor lock-in only exists when your company sucks and you are afraid of your customers leaving (like a little program called ms office.)

      Oh well, guess I'm done ranting. (And yes I am locked in to a cell plan... doesn't mean I like it.)

    25. Re:Simple really... by brusk · · Score: 1

      No, if you die it remains enforceable against your estate. If I borrow a million dollars from the bank and I die tomorrow, my family doesn't automatically get to keep the money (or whatever I bought with it)--the estate still owes whatever principal and interest are due.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    26. Re:Simple really... by BoberFett · · Score: 3, Informative

      The contract was signed by the woman, not her husband. Not that I'm drawing judgment one way or the other, just saying that the person under contract did not die.

    27. Re:Simple really... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Well the "bad press" has happened and it is just another example of what a dirt-bag company VZW and all of Verizon actually is. I have nearly nothing nice to say about Verizon and it all comes from direct personal experience with the company. Everything from business services to wireless including MPLS, DS3, POTS, PRI, ISDN, Data T1 internet and business wireless -- they have all been unsatisfactory in terms of customer service and business services. I see it as a combination of short man power due to all their layoffs (Why are there layoffs? Verizon isn't hurting for money or business?!) Union workers being inflexible and unadaptable, and a bunch of people who simply don't care.

      I am sick to death of Verizon and wish they would just go out of business. They don't deserve their market position and their customers don't deserve the abuse.

    28. Re:Simple really... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Well played! LOL!

    29. Re:Simple really... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Get a phone from one of the many vendors who will sell you one month to month or by the minute?

    30. Re:Simple really... by Technician · · Score: 3, Funny

      This low level decision appears to be the norm. We ran into it when my mother-in-law passed. We solved the problem by submitting a forward phone and address of her final resting place. Her old apartment address is no longer valid. I think they soon got the message that she moved and is not replying to letters and can't take a phone call. They are welcome to drop in and visit.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    31. Re:Simple really... by pcolaman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's say he's an E-2. According to the 2010 Military Pay Table located here he'd be making 1622.10 a month before the bonuses. His BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) as an E-2 with a dependent is 619.50. Add to that his family separation allowance of $250 (since I assume he was away from his wife). According to the pay table, his hazard pay (assuming he wasn't on an air crew or in a submarine or something like that) is $150. The BAQ allowance would vary based on where he lives assuming his wife lived off base when he deployed. But that would essentially just cover housing costs. So he makes a grand total of approximately 2641.6 a month to defend our country, assuming he's an E-2 with typical years in service for an E-2. That sounds like a lot, but then let's look at the parent's claim that he makes less than a typical garbage man in a large city. Searched at random for a large city's sanitation work site, found this for New York. They start off making 31,200 a year. Assuming they get paid bi-monthly, that's 1300.00 every paycheck, or 2600 a month, right off the bat, and can increase to as much as slightly over 67,000. So right off the bat, a garbage man makes, without accounting for any benefits, just slightly less than an E-2 who is married, in a combat zone, and lives on base. As the increases for the sanitation workers is periodic, and judging the fact that within 5.5 years they are making near or at their cap (a cap that enlisted won't reach for some time even with benefits), I'd say that his claim is valid (and rather sad).

    32. Re:Simple really... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Would an executive have even heard about it if the news agency hadn't made that inquiry?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    33. Re:Simple really... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Any person who can represent a company in legal matters isn't a low paid drone. Ultimately, if a company has 'low paid drones' making decisions, or being the only point of contact to apply decisions, the company has made those people legal agents. If they aren't trained as legal agents, don't actually know what the law requires, don't have the right to sign contracts for the company and so on, yet they are the only people you can speak with, then the company is trying to do business without making its legal agents available.
            I am currently a legal agent for two banks, and have had training in what I can and can't promise for those banks, plus I know damned well that the law requires me to make specific points and means of contact with our lawyers available in writing and explain certain legal rights to all clients both in writing and verbally.
            Banks face tough rules (well lending banks do, maybe not the big boy investment banks, or prime lenders of resort), but everyone incorporated has to have a sharp line between general workers and people authorised to represent the company. If you ever find yourself doing business with someone and they can't explain which side of that line they fall on, the solution is to not do business with them. (I hate to even say this - it feels like saying, "If the wires appear to be carrying current, don't stick them in your ears" - but somehow, a lot of people don't get this one.).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    34. Re:Simple really... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nicely elucidated. I must now seek out and read some copy and paste trolling to reassure myself that slashdot is functioning normally...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    35. Re:Simple really... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a major failure in the way the company is structured then.

      If you don't have a system that allows people with insight and power to make decisions that affect your customers without the latter going to the media and crying foul, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    36. Re:Simple really... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      OTOH, The U.S. Military ain't exactly angels. So which ones of us should Verizon be fucking?

      You should be thankful that they are there to fight and die for you. And yeah sometimes you have to shed the angel wings to go kick some taliban ass and sometimes it doesn't work out right and we kill innocent people. Walk a mile in their shoes before you judge them. Regarding the early termination fee, that happened because some rep was not empowered (or too stupid) to step up and do the right thing. No story there.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    37. Re:Simple really... by besalope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."

      You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.

      Having worked customer (dis)service, it generally comes down to:

      • A) Follow Rule Book and say "No." -- Keep job, even if low paying, in an economy that is still utterly tanked.
      • B) Fuck the Rule Book. -- Help some random stranger you really don't care about, who really doesn't care about you or the crap you put up with on a daily basis, which in turn places your job and livelihood at risk.

      I'm sorry, but given the options most customer service representatives can choose from, they will undoubtedly go with the "cover your ass" approach to insulate themselves being detrimentally effected by poor decision-making. Was it right to charge an ETF to a grieving widow? No. But in business contracts are king. You signed it, deal with it.

    38. Re:Simple really... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Way to walk the middle of the road man. Their ETF fee's will be their downfall.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    39. Re:Simple really... by Maximus633 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thank you for the hard work and looking into this. Your post was very well written.

      For the person who was discussing that they make a lot of money or that they get a check for their life insurance. Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income? Yes Verizon has their loss now that the poor guy isn't going to be using the phone monthly and they can't collect that fee. I am sorry for that but when someone dies in any respect you won't get your money monthly anymore any way so why should you "collect what you can" instead of being resonable and going we are sorry for your loss and you proved the person died so since they won't be a problem to our business or use any resources we can justify letting the ETF go. If I had a large enough business like Verizon does I would say just that "Send me a copy of the death certificate." Once I got that it would be "I am sorry for your loss. Should you need a new cell phone provider in an area we service please feel free to look us up we will be waiting for you to come back." But I have a lot of respect for the military and people in general and don't look for every possible way to screw them out of a dollar. Low level drone or not this person should have some compassion and if not him the company should have a policy in place to offer that. Guess I won't ever be rich.

    40. Re:Simple really... by bigdreamer · · Score: 1

      Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.

      The better corporations realize that money isn't made from getting a customer, but maintaining good customer relationships with current customers. In this economy, no one can afford to provide poor customer service. I hope Verizon changes its policy to deal with the deaths of its current customers.

    41. Re:Simple really... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Riiight. And the insurance money is supposed to pay for ETF to a corporation on a case that it would lose in a court. I would suggest the widow sues and demands a jury trial to get compensation for mental harassment.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    42. Re:Simple really... by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm probably going to burn some mod points with this, but I just want to go on record saying that I think you are a huge piece of shit.

    43. Re:Simple really... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I take it, then, that you do not support the idea of a professional, volunteer, standing army?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    44. Re:Simple really... by Forge · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... I doubt they lose that much money in early termination due to deceased individuals.

      For the record they do loose that much money. If you got a top end phone for "free" with your contract, it cost the phone company the full wholesale price.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    45. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except we're not talking about an officer, just an enlisted man. So his clothes and food are also paid for, tax free. And he and his family can shop at the PX, tax free. And he gets free healthcare, something garbage men don't. The AVERAGE salary for a garbage man with less than 4 years of service in the US is between 30-60k/yr. And he's smelling of garbage every day. And he doesn't get to retire after 20 years. And he can't apply for a full disability, giving him even more pay annually, years after leaving his job.

      But this is about the wife. She signed a contract with Verizon, knowing it had poor coverage in her home town, and signed that she would pay for the free phone if she didn't keep the contract for the full 2 years of the contract. If the garbage man's husband died while collecting garbage, and she moved to her home town, and cancelled her verizon contract, she'd have to pay for the remaining cost of her phone. Why should one widow, who gets less financial benefits, have to pay more than another widow who gets more money?

    46. Re:Simple really... by boxwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt the "drone" would even have the ability to waive the fee. I am certain they don't give that authority to anyone taking calls, and I seriously doubt even their managers have that authority themselves.

      So unless the "drone" was willing to pay the $350 out of his/her own pocket it just wouldn't happen.

      Unfortunately, to the modern day corporation, customer support is a problem to be disposed of as cheaply as possible. That means encouraging the people working the phones to get the customer to go way as quickly and cheaply as possible. If they allow people at the call center (almost always outsourced) to give refunds and waive fees, increases costs. Much more profitable to have the call center give people the run around until they give up. And tell the call center that is someone from the media calls to direct those to a people who do have extra authority.

      Here's a tip: if you want to get awesome support for so piece of technology, when you call, say "I'm writing a review for ." They'll bend over backwards for you. If you aren't in the media no corporation will give a shit about your problem. Your problem isn't their problem. Their problem is to get rid of you.

    47. Re:Simple really... by victorhooi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      heya,

      And you sir, must be an Anonynous Coward...oh wait...you are...

      Look, you may or may not have had respect for the last Administration. But this guy decided to leave his family, go over there, and serve his country. He was fighting the Taliban, the same folks who harboured Osama, who err, let's see, bombed the World Trade Centre? I'm Australian, but last time I checked, that incident killed quite a few of you folk.

      Look, I know it's hip and trendy for us to sit here comfortably in our offices, and our homes, with air-conditioning, decent food, and nice suits, whilst people on the other side of the world are risking their lives, but seriously mate, get some class...

      I think the coward label is most apt here.

      Also, corporate apologist? What the heck has that got to do with anything? *sigh* You American left-wing nutjobs really amuse me. You try to see a conspiracy in everything. Is Verizon in cohorts with the Taliban? Or are they in cohorts with Haliburton? Or I don't know, is somebody in cohorts with someobdy else? And where did the Republican tag come from?

      And military bootlicker, please...He was just a kid who went over there to defend his country? It's all very well and good to talk down the military while you're sitting comfortably, in your anonymity there, but I'd like you to go up to a war-widom and say that to her face. She'd probably break you into little pieces and make you weep like a little boy....now that'd be a sight..

      Cheers,
      Victor

    48. Re:Simple really... by Sanhedran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er, no; being critical of the war(s) while simultaneously being respectful for those who serve in the military and are ordered to war by our elected officials is a perfectly tenable position. It helps to avoid being lumped in with the kind of viewpoint that, say, most Vietnam War protestors held. Nice to see that non-black-and-white opinions seem to be "PC bullshit," though. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that there's nothing inherently "honorable" about anything whatsoever in the universe, since something has to be attributed some amount of respectfulness by society in general for it to be such. Since most societies in the world give such status to their soldiers and their duties, it has been made honorable. So, it *is* honorable, but not a natural law, just like nearly everything in society. I wonder how you interpret most of your interactions with the world at large? I think there would be a lot of contradiction in your viewpoints, if you were knowledgeable enough on the subject to see such contradictions.

    49. Re:Simple really... by Sanhedran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't "loose" any money except any projected difference in income between contract end and termination data, minus the cancellation fee. It's a tactic to a) make money off of people who aren't even getting any services from the company, and b) force consumers to stick with said company for no other reason than being punished otherwise. Phone carriers have seen a big return on text and data plans. I'd like to see what data you have that says that losses due to customer death are any sort of significant concern for them, though.

    50. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      They do have the ability, In fact Verizon has given the ability to wave fees to their drones..

      When I had to put my contract on hold when I was headed overseas I called to pay my current bill and to put it on hold. I told the rep I was deploying and he waved my entire last bill.

      I also asked one of my friends from college who works at the Verizon call center in Nebraska, they are given the ability to wave fees for special circumstances up to and including the early termination fee.

      If they do it often though they will be reviewed, and it could look poorly on the drone. The drone was looking out for the drones sake and no one elses. IMHO the drone went against standard company practice to waive the fee, he should be fired.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    51. Re:Simple really... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      The publicity of this issue is certainly the reason they're backing out, but it's not the important bit.

      The important bit is not allowing you to cancel your contract when you move to an area where the company does not provide service. I know for a fact that US Cellular does(or at least did) provide that as a loophole out of your contract because I have actually utilized it, so it's not unknown in US carriers.

      It's an important one, it doesn't really matter that her husband died(at least from this point of view), it matters that she's moving to where Verizon cannot provide service, the contract is for her to pay and them to provide service, if they cannot it should end the contract(one might argue that they should be required to pay an early termination fee, but since she's the one initiating the move it's a bit of a wash).

      You might actually find that the whole issue was of someone in customer service not listening very clearly and her focusing on her sob story to try and get better treatment. If she'd just said "I'm moving to town X you don't provide service in town X, I need to end my contract", they might very well have not charged her in the first place.

    52. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Yes.. There are other companies that offer insurance for soldiers that don't have the war clause. USAA.. USBA.. AAFMAA.. are all insurance companies that offer insurance w/ no war clause. (Google search gave me the answers.. USAA is the only one I've dealt with.. don't know about the reputation of the others.)

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    53. Re:Simple really... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      It's most likely that she received $500,000 for the loss of her husband. There is an immediate payment of a tax-free $100,000 death gratuity (macabre name, I know). Then there's a standard $400,000 GI life insurance payout unless she opted out of it. (No one in an active combat zone has ever dropped or decreased that coverage, though it's possible to do so.) The $350 Verizon ETF was on her own account, not her husband's.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    54. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      It went to 400k if I'm not mistaken, which at the time I think I paid 20 dollars a month.

      http://www.insurance.va.gov/sglisite/sgli/sgliPremiums.htm

      Looks like 65 cents per thousand.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    55. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have been marked troll. I would bet money also he wouldn't say it to even one of that guys buddies. If he did, I would bet an even greater sum that he would regret it.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    56. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      The real story here is your an insensitive prick. I find YOU disgusting.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    57. Re:Simple really... by LandGator · · Score: 3, Informative

      E-3, Lance Corporal, according to insignia in picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_rank_insignia#Enlisted

      $83/mo more.

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
    58. Re:Simple really... by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

      The story doesn't tell you that she was also on the contract, not just him. So, when she canceled it, she canceled it before the contract expired, so she has to pay the early termination fee, duh.....

      --
      Previewing comments are for sissies!
    59. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, "A city at random" now equals NYC, the most expensive city in the country with salaries to match.

      Nice also to see that you dodged the question of take-home pay after tax.

      I would also argue that a garbage man does more to serve 'our country' than participate in a war of aggression. I think it's funny how 'serving your country' means being a soldier and not, say, being a cop.

    60. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.

      And why does the fact that her husband died mean that she shouldn't have to pay for her cellphone bill? I'd understand if it was HIS phone that she was deactivating (they aren't allowed to charge an ETF for cancelling the service of someone who's dead), but it was HER phone she was cancelling because she chose to move to a place where she wouldn't get service.

      Her husband dying is completely irrelevant to the issue with Verizon charging her an ETF as was stated in her contract. The issue here is a woman decided of her own volition to move to a place where she wouldn't get service with Verizon and as such, she canceled her contract early. Instead of paying the ETF as she should, she uses a sob story about how her husband died (which had no impact on the phone bill, since we're only talking about canceling HER phone) and as such, she shouldn't be expected to pay her bills and fulfill her legal obligations.

      I accidentally broke my phone and decided to change carriers when I got a new one - I paid the ETF without complaint. Paying an ETF on a broken phone is much more ridiculous than paying an ETF because you decide to move where you know you won't get service.

      I know, I'll get modded down because people want to say "But her husband died!" - yes, he did, and that sucks for her big time. I'd hate to have something like that happen to me. However, it doesn't change the fact that she still has to pay her bills and uphold her end of the contract.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    61. Re:Simple really... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Or I don't know, is somebody in cohorts with someobdy else?

      Yes - a few hundred Roman soldiers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    62. Re:Simple really... by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Are you really equating our troops to mob hitmen?

      Are you really that big of a piece of shit?

    63. Re:Simple really... by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

      don't fire the drone for making the mistake that quickly. If the person was in the wrong department (say, was routed to a tech support agent that was handling customer care overflow) the drone may not have known the full policy, and may not have gained the skill to find the correct policy. When I was working the tech support contract for VZW, many of my fellow tech agents couldn't find the customer care policies, and several of the supervisors were only decent at.. err.. I'm not sure what they were good at actually.. managing underlings I guess.

    64. Re:Simple really... by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with the feeling behind your post, but please take this back: (and much of the rest of the world), The United States has caused more trouble for other countries that they have tried to "liberate" than anyone else in this post world war 2 age. All of us would be happier if you didn't try to be the saviour of the world, upholding freedom and democracy everywhere. And considering that we are talking about the most powerful nation in the world, we would also sleep safer without your help.

    65. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      If there is not legal protection for something like a cell phone service contract, there should be. And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      Sorry, but you're the asshole. If you bothered to RTFA, you'd know it was HER cellphone she wanted to skip out on paying the ETF for, NOT his. There are laws against charging an ETF on a dead persons contract. This wasn't his contract though, and as such it's rather disappointing that Verizon let her skip out on paying her bills just because she went to the media with a sob story that had nothing to do with her being charged an ETF.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    66. Re:Simple really... by ChrisDevine · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA says he is a Lance Corporal, which would have given him an E-3 paygrade. Another article from a hometown newspaper says he enlisted in early 2007, which would have put him right around the 3 year mark.

      As an E-3 with over 2 years in service he would make $1813.20 a month. If he was over 3 years, he would make $1923.00 a month.

      Add $1,198.97 a month in allowances and he is making between $3,012.17 and $3,121.97 a month.

    67. Re:Simple really... by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      A fee should be waived for a military widow. Yeah, I'm sure you can counter with the "it's not in the contract nor in the law", but I believe there is an ethical responsibility here. It's $350 to a multi-bagillion dollar corporation. Send a death certificate and a military ID to prevent people from abusing the system, but waive the bloody fee, FFS.

      The lack of corporate ethical standards promotes over-regulation and legal overreaching on the part of our legislatures. I contend that if one stands for less government interference, one should also stand for greater adhesion to common sense ethical standards.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    68. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well first off, as it's been pointed out plenty of times, this was HER personal phone she was canceling, NOT his and NOT a joint account. Secondly, why the fuck should he get special treatment for his job?

      Common sense and ethics have NOTHING to do with waiving a persons bills just because a totally unrelated unfortunate incident happens. The fact that you want to promote the military as being superior to us mere peasants and that they should get more special privileges than they already do shows a complete lack of ethics on your part.

      You probably favor the system where being in the military gives you an automatic bump to the head of the line in getting a government job - even if the job is completely unrelated to the military. Yea, if it's a job such as police or FBI, sure, you should get an advantage because you have related experience. However, promoting a person who was in the military for a scientist position over a much more qualified person who wasn't in the military is just idiotic.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    69. Re:Simple really... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Are you really equating our troops to mob hitmen?

      Are you really that big of a piece of shit?

      Hey!

      As a rather large piece of shit myself, I take offense to that comment. Take it back you insensitive clod!

      How dare you associate perfectly good pieces of shit with that worthless piece of.... Oh dear Lord. What can we call something so low? There is no term for such a lowlife (no offense meant towards lowlifes)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    70. Re:Simple really... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."

      You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.

      Having worked customer (dis)service, it generally comes down to:

      • A) Follow Rule Book and say "No." -- Keep job, even if low paying, in an economy that is still utterly tanked.
      • B) Fuck the Rule Book. -- Help some random stranger you really don't care about, who really doesn't care about you or the crap you put up with on a daily basis, which in turn places your job and livelihood at risk.

      I'm sorry, but given the options most customer service representatives can choose from, they will undoubtedly go with the "cover your ass" approach to insulate themselves being detrimentally effected by poor decision-making. Was it right to charge an ETF to a grieving widow? No. But in business contracts are king. You signed it, deal with it.

      Obviously, you have never worked in customer service or if you have, you didn't last very long because you're too stupid for the job.

      Let me show you how it's done:
      Option C: Escalation. Call your manager over and ask him/her what to do. If they say bill the widow, you say, "Although I'm not qualified to make that decision, I don't agree with the decision you have made here. Since the decision is yours, either you tell her yourself of tell me, i writing or email, exactly what it is you want me to tell this lady."

      I've done CS for years and I'm actually making a pretty good living at it. I'm high enough to make decisions and if I have any problems with something I'm told to do, I either take it the supervisor of whoever gave the order or make the manager do it his or her self.

      No job can make you do what you don't think is right.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    71. Re:Simple really... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't really matter HOW you die, it's just grim against the family/friends of that family to impose fees like that.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    72. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      So, because I think a woman should pay her bills instead of exploiting her husbands death to get out of her (not his, HER) legal obligations, I'm disgusting?

      It's the irrational and irresponsible people like you that make me proud to get flamed for advocating personal responsibility.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    73. Re:Simple really... by anarche · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Explain to me what exactly the war has to do with defending our country?

      The US has only fought one war in the last century that involved defending our country, and that was fighting against the Japanese during WWII because they attacked Pearl Harbor first. The rest of them were pointless wars for politicians personal agendas and the safety of the US and it's citizens was never threatened.

      Basic theory of national defence: fight your wars on someone else's soil. Otherwise you'll be fighting them on your soil.

      Oh, and your figures are severely skewed because you forgot to take into account the fact that when he's deployed the military covers all of his expenses, so that money is pure profit.

      Really? The Army pays for his mortgage while he's away?

      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    74. Re:Simple really... by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basic theory of national defence: fight your wars on someone else's soil. Otherwise you'll be fighting them on your soil.

      Except that these were countries that we had no quarrel with and no reason to go to war with. If we didn't attack them, they would not have attacked us. Those wars were fought over politicians personal agendas, just like the current one.

      Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "police action" of some sort.....

      Really? The Army pays for his mortgage while he's away?

      I guess you missed the part in that guys calculation where he mentioned monthly stipend for housing.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    75. Re:Simple really... by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      lol - nerd rage

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    76. Re:Simple really... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that we've come to the point where using blunt language to describe someone who advocates for kicking someone when they're down gets you marked as a troll.

    77. Re:Simple really... by Migity · · Score: 1

      Let's just look at his rank in the picture and realize he's an E-3 (at least when the picture was taken).

    78. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dude, do you like anybody? You probably even hate yourself when you're jerking off...jeez, why don't you go smoke a joint, relax, and enjoy life.

      You're only in your second year of college, right? Don't worry, you'll grow up some day if you're lucky.

    79. Re:Simple really... by socheres · · Score: 1

      yep.
      their daily profits are going to plummet from several hundred million dollars to several hundred million dollars minus one...=/

      get a grip man with this old argument, as it may be true for a small pizzeria but really for a big corp. i think no amount of bad publicity can seriously affect profits.
      you are not goint to see mass terminations because they are bound by contracts, you will not see decreased calling volumes and the subscription rate will probably only decrease with a a couple or percents in certain cities.

    80. Re:Simple really... by master_p · · Score: 1

      So you really think that the US is in Afghanistan in order to capture and punish Bin Laden? And you think that the vast deposits of minerals in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the US presence there?

      Good. I have a bridge to sell you. It goes for $9.99, and it is in Sydney.

      (as long as there are gullible people like you out there, the world's governments will fuck us over and over multiple times).

    81. Re:Simple really... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      "massive pressure from the PHBs to wring every penny out of the customer" is enough to justify the burning.

    82. Re:Simple really... by moortak · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest. The US military may shoot first and ask questions later, but the average mob hitman shoots first then goes out for a drink. Questions of right and wrong really don't enter into their equation. The media image of the mob as classy honorable guys is even more of a joke than the same view of the military.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    83. Re:Simple really... by Journe · · Score: 1

      Aside from the minerals and oils, think about it... The taliban is not Iraq/Afghanistan's official army. So invading those countries because of 9/11, is like invading China because of Cho Seung Hi's massacre at V-Tech, or invading Africa because a black guy stole a car, or invading Japan because some jackass sliced a few people up with a katana...see where I'm going with this? When one is attacked by an elk, one does not shoot their way through the heart of bear country just to kill a few elks.

    84. Re:Simple really... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      Devil's advocate time.

      Michaela Brummund canceled Michaela Brummund's cell phone contract with Verizon because Michaela Brummund decided to move somewhere Verizon didn't service.

      So why is it unreasonable to assess an ETF? Oh. Because of why she decided to move. Her husband is dead.

      So if someone's spouse dies and they decide to up and move, contractual obligation cease? Oh. It's because of why her husband was dead.

      So if my wife dies of cancer and I decide to become a hermit and live in a cave, I should pay an ETF but if she dies employed by the military I shouldn't? What if she's a school-bus driver and dies in an accident after decades of serving children? Because one death is inherently more important than another. No. I'm sorry, it's not.

      I'm glad that Verizon cut her a break. That's great. But there's nothing inherently right in doing so. It's just a PR gesture.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    85. Re:Simple really... by Antarius · · Score: 1

      I don't know about in the US, but the contracts I've read in Australia specifically state that if the contract holder dies, the contract is terminated and they won't go after the deceased's estate for further compensation.

      If the phone was in his name, they should let it go.

    86. Re:Simple really... by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > But *this* woman's husband died serving our country

      Call it that if you like. He caught a pay check for doing the dirty work of the regime in Washington. If you want to cal that "Serving our country", go right ahead, I refuse to call it such. He did a despicable and honorless job, he may as well have died murdering babys for all I recognize it. I don't see why verizon or anyone should make any concessions for him or his family.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    87. Re:Simple really... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gah, i just pissed away my mod-points this morning, otherwise you would have earned a +1 insightfull from me.

      Contrary to what many americans seem to believe, nations like iraq, north korea and north vietnam were/are no serious threat (they cant even put the M in MAD if they chose to go to war with the US), and what little realistic threat they pose, is mostly due to the fact that the US cant keep out of other peoples business. If you pull enough strings that dont belong to you, you are bound to end up pissing people off...

      Now i'm european, so i should be thankfull for liberating us from the germans in '45, but doing one thing right doesnt give you a free pass to go around and play shadow-puppet games around the world..

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    88. Re:Simple really... by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Look, you may or may not have had respect for the last Administration. But this guy decided to leave his family, go over
      > there, and serve his country. He was fighting the Taliban, the same folks who harboured Osama, who err, let's see,
      > bombed the World Trade Centre? I'm Australian, but last time I checked, that incident killed quite a few of you folk.

      How about if I don't have respect for this administration, now. Or the one before the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that...

      The world trade center incident didn't kill quite a few, it killed a small drop in the bucket of our folks. Many many more Afghanis and Iraqis have died since the pointless wars started than we have lost. Personally, I don't give a shit about the whole "US" vs "Them" thing, dead is dead, and we have rivers of blood on our hands now thanks to assholes like this guy who can't say no to a paycheck and an order.

      There is no honor in being a military man, and its time we stop pretending that there is. The only honor in fighting is when casting off an occupying force. Otherwise, you are just a wanna be conqueror's bitch.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    89. Re:Simple really... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i didnt RTFA, but i assume this is about the deceased guy's phone?

      Then i presume that the contract was between him and verizon, and then one of the two parties dies, how does that NOT end the contract? one of the parties is by no definition a legal entity anymore...

      besides, it's not likely people would kill themselves to get out of a contract (i'll just go ahead and assume verizon isnt that bad), so provided they require a copy of the death certificate, this can not be exploited for fraud (unless you are willing to fake your death, once again, that is taking it a bit far). I'd say this is just a business risk verizon needs to take into account...

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    90. Re:Simple really... by spamking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The world trade center incident didn't kill quite a few, it killed a small drop in the bucket of our folks. Many many more Afghanis and Iraqis have died since the pointless wars started than we have lost. Personally, I don't give a shit about the whole "US" vs "Them" thing, dead is dead, and we have rivers of blood on our hands now thanks to assholes like this guy who can't say no to a paycheck and an order.

      So you're ok with a couple of thousand people dying from an attack every so often? You sir are a prick. You wouldn't even have the right to spank it to pr0n all day if "assholes like this guy" didn't die protecting freedoms for worthless punks like you.

      There is no honor in being a military man, and its time we stop pretending that there is. The only honor in fighting is when casting off an occupying force. Otherwise, you are just a wanna be conqueror's bitch.

      -Steve

      What would you know about honor?

    91. Re:Simple really... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision

      I agree with your point to some degree, but doing some basic math (average human life expectancy, average cell phone contract), it should happen relatively often that a cell-phone owner dies before his/her contract is up (even if you account for the fact many old people wont have a phone). Think of how many people die (too) young from cancer/traffic etc.. and a large cell-phone company should have a procedure (and risk calculation) for handling subscribers dying.

      For all i care they put a clause in the contract that if the subscriber dies before the contract is up, the (subsidized) phone needs to be returned...

      This wasnt an executive decision, but there damn well should have been one beforehand, with an appropriate policy

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    92. Re:Simple really... by spamking · · Score: 1

      Really? Ok . . . then the next time a natural disaster hits your country don't come begging for help.

    93. Re:Simple really... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      Ok, i just RTFS again, and it turns out the phone doesnt belong to the dead guy, but to the widow.. In which case i fully agree with verizon charging the ETF. She made the choice to move to some backwater town, she should have realized the consequences of that, and accept it, or dont move..

      i'll probably lose some karma over this, but fuck it, this is about personal responsabilities, something most people dont take seriously enough

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    94. Re:Simple really... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      See my post for his pay breakdown...he was an E-3, according to the article. He most likely had been in for a couple of years because the Marine Corps is stingy with promotions (or he could have started as an E3, depending on education and recruiting credits).

    95. Re:Simple really... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      So a garbage man working in NYC with three years experience would still end up making more than him.

    96. Re:Simple really... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Didn't see the picture, which is why I said "Let's say he's an E-2." Guess what, I also provided all of the sources for which I came to my numbers, so you too, for the low price of free, can determine what any rank would make. I know, requires some effort, sorry about that.

    97. Re:Simple really... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income?

      From a VA fact sheet, dated 2004, the VA pays the surviving spouse $967 month plus $241 per each child until that person turns 57 or remarries. It's probably more than that now.

      http://dva.state.wi.us/Webforms/Data_Factsheets/survivor_benefits.pdf

    98. Re:Simple really... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Rough crowd today. Not sure why you are at -1 for posting facts and not emotionally over-reacting.

    99. Re:Simple really... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      It is indeed sad - but is that Verizon's fault? Shouldn't we be calling for the Government to increase their salary, rather than blaming companies for not making exceptions upfront (even though they reversed the decision after)?

      I think it's reasonable to criticise Verizon, but there are several issues here. Is the termination fee unreasonable - in which case isn't in always unreasonable (albeit more so in this case)? If though they really have incurred those charges, then whilst it's unfortunate, it's unclear why they should have to pay, or why this is different to any other contracts (phones, mortgages); or indeed the many other costs when someone dies (is it distasteful to bill the widow for the funeral? Of course not - even though no one wants to pay it, we don't assume it to be given by companies for free).

      And then there's the issue of whether people should be treated different by companies because they're in the army (or, by your argument, because they're in low paid jobs). And if so, is it only Verizon who are at fault here? (When was the last time you or I were charitable to someone in the army, or in a low paid job.)

    100. Re:Simple really... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I said it's sad that a garbage man, within 5.5 years of service, can make more than almost any enlisted man can hope to. I made no comment on the Verizon issue whatsoever. As far as the whole issue, while I don't necessarily disagree with Verizon, it was definitely in bad taste. Looks like they eventually made the right call.

    101. Re:Simple really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you're doing it wrong

      And making a ton of money.

    102. Re:Simple really... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Okay, but are there provisions for someone dying in service?

      Perhaps there should be, I think that's fine - but if not, then you don't get to criticise Verizon on the law. You might criticise them because they're not being nice, but your arguments about the law and contracts in other areas is irrelevant.

      Also note that if such a provision existed, then companies like that would know that in advance, and could take steps to cover their costs. (I can't help feeling it'd be better for the Government to pay them better, and give adequete life insurance, but it's obviously easier to pass the buck onto private companies.)

    103. Re:Simple really... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Because it's not their money to give away.

      It'd be like me showing compassion by giving your money to charity...

    104. Re:Simple really... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is actually very courteous by corporate (and especially telecom) standards.

      If you check their contract they probably have the right to repossess your corpse's organs to cover early termination fees in case of your death.*

      *Only half kidding.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    105. Re:Simple really... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      E-2 is pretty low down the pay grade. I believe a Marine who's been in long enough to see combat is likely to be an E3 at this point, due to the extensive training they go through. I could be mistaken on that.

      Yeah, the article even says he's an E-3. But never mind that... Compared to "joe shmoe" jobs, they're still not making jack.

      As far as Verizon is concerned... I'd say this is more a result of a large organization with no process for this sort of thing dropping the ball (due to a peon not pushing it up the chain hard enough) than it is one of Verizon being malevolent.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    106. Re:Simple really... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sanjay in Calcutta either follows the script or he gets fired. They didn't hire him to think.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    107. Re:Simple really... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The people in France, Belgium, Poland, England, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Georgia, the Czech Republic, Albania, and many other countries likely disagree quite strongly with your sentiments.

      Perhaps you're also forgetting Hitler's desire to invade the US mainland, upon successful conquest of Europe? How about Iraq's support for hostile action against us, or the militant Islamics who have been plotting (and perpetrating) attacks against US citizens here and abroad?

      Perhaps unfortunately, "defense of country" can be taken quite broadly. I would not disagree with such an argument. However, it can not be honestly argued that stopping the encroachment of communism (and wearing their war machine down), stopping national socialism (for a short time :() in Europe, and preventing the rise of totalitarian dictators has been a vain effort contrary to this goal.

      When the markets in Asia impact us as much as how well Joe Schmoe at the bakery down the street is doing - and more quickly - the denial of world conflicts impacting our lives is a fairly shallow-minded, self-serving stance.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    108. Re:Simple really... by valdis · · Score: 1

      "So you're ok with a couple of thousand people dying from an attack every so often?"

      The fact is that we as a society have decided that *much* higher preventable losses are in fact acceptable.

      The 3,000 or so we lost in one attack a decade ago averages out to 300 per year. Compare this to the 36,000 a year that die in car crashes, or the 400,000 that die from smoking-related deaths, or the 300,000 due to obesity - maybe we should be declaring war on cars, cigarettes and food instead. Oh, and several hundred people die of bee stings a year, and 50 or so from lightning strikes - time to declare war on them too?

      And there's something to be said for the idea that we as a nation should just man up and *not* insist on getting bent out of shape - remember that stuff like pissing away trillions in 2 wars, the Patriot act, the security theater that is the TSA - those are all things the terrorists *want* us to do. Osama bin Laden is probably laughing his ass off - all he has to do is send 1 incompetent guy every 2-3 years to light his underwear on fire, and let us do the work of destroying ourselves.

      Since 9/11, some 4 million US residents have died because we as a nation think that's an acceptable loss to preserve people's right to smoke tobacco. Surely, 300 per year is an acceptable loss to preserve people's rights as a free society.

    109. Re:Simple really... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I worked as a CSR years ago in Australia. i was at the bottom of the heap as far as seniority went but I definitely would have had the power to cancel this fee without having to defer to someone higher up. I would have reported my actions after I had taken them and that is it. I personally couldn't work for a company in which i would need someone else's authority to make such an obvious decision.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    110. Re:Simple really... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      A garbage man working in NYC makes more than unskilled and semi skilled workers just about anywhere else in the world.
      It's an insanely expensive place to live.
      Earning less than a NYC garbage man without the cost of living in new york is nothing exceptional.

    111. Re:Simple really... by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10money.html

      "The companies will waive the early termination fee if you die."

      "Next to death, moving to a place where your phone company does not have service may not seem so draconian. Each company provides maps on its Web site or at its stores that show the general service area, so you can easily figure that out. But companies will ask for proof of the new address. The T-Mobile spokesman warns that it has to be a legitimate address, and post office boxes will not work.

      There is an intriguing escape clause in contracts with phone companies that offer "roaming" services, though it is intended to give the carrier a way out. When a cellphone is used outside the provider's network, calls are routed through another company's network. The consumer pays a monthly fee for this service, which the carrier uses to pay the other phone companies to handle those calls.

      Roam too much and your phone company starts losing money. Find a place where your phone goes into roaming mode and make at least half your calls from there. Every carrier said they would cancel the contract, though it might take them a month or two to notice."

      The wife did everything she needed to according to the NYTimes article to have the contract voided w/o the termination fee. She signed a contract for them to provide service and moved to an area that they didn't cover. For the contract to continue, they would have needed to provide service for her.....much cheaper for them to just waive the ETF.

    112. Re:Simple really... by spamking · · Score: 1

      "So you're ok with a couple of thousand people dying from an attack every so often?"

      The fact is that we as a society have decided that *much* higher preventable losses are in fact acceptable.

      The 3,000 or so we lost in one attack a decade ago averages out to 300 per year. Compare this to the 36,000 a year that die in car crashes, or the 400,000 that die from smoking-related deaths, or the 300,000 due to obesity - maybe we should be declaring war on cars, cigarettes and food instead.

      Where have you been? We have higher safety standards for cars today than we did 25 years ago.

      Smoking has been banned in numerous businesses across the country. Taxes are higher on cigarettes today than in the 50's/60's.

      Those people who care about what they eat are doing something about their weight issues. Those who don't never will.

      Oh, and several hundred people die of bee stings a year, and 50 or so from lightning strikes - time to declare war on them too?

      Really? You're comparing lives lost from a terrorist attack to those lost from allergies to a bee sting?

      And there's something to be said for the idea that we as a nation should just man up and *not* insist on getting bent out of shape - remember that stuff like pissing away trillions in 2 wars, the Patriot act, the security theater that is the TSA - those are all things the terrorists *want* us to do.

      As opposed to what exactly? Ignoring the global threats these groups pose and just hope it doesn't happen again? Some of the agencies put in place after 9/11 aren't as efficient as they were ment to be, but having them in place is better than not doing anything.

      Osama bin Laden is probably laughing his ass off - all he has to do is send 1 incompetent guy every 2-3 years to light his underwear on fire, and let us do the work of destroying ourselves.

      This would've ended a long time ago if we played by his rules IMO. If "we" didn't care about innocents and consequences as much as some of you like to think.

      Since 9/11, some 4 million US residents have died because we as a nation think that's an acceptable loss to preserve people's right to smoke tobacco. Surely, 300 per year is an acceptable loss to preserve people's rights as a free society.

      You can't preserve anything in a "free" society if you don't retaliate against attacks.

    113. Re:Simple really... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Well Service and pay issues aside, pehaps Verizon needs to re-evaluate their policies since their competitors will waive the ETF for a soldier deploying overseas. And They will waive the ETF if the customer cannot get service where they live. Second Tax free at the PX isn't that great a deal. PX prices are inflated to support the MWR system so you can often (if not always) beat the PX "tax free" prices at Walmart on all but big ticket items. An enlisted man's food is not paid for, unless he's single and living in the barracks and eating at the dining facility, this guy is married thus he's on separate rats.

      His initial uniform issue is free, and he gets additional funds to pay for them but his clothes are not free. He has to maintain his uniforms in good condition and that means buying replacements at Clothing Sales. This is planned for and some money is paid specifically for this but if he's combat arms and constantly crawling on the ground, and through muck and brush he's having to buy new uniforms faster than the standard replacement rate.

      Second how do you know she recieved a phone for this particular contract. Yes that's the initial purpose of the ETF, but try and change your plan after your contract has run out. 9 time out of 10 they'll try to tack on a new ETF contract any time you try to add a new calling plan feature. "Want 7 pm nights instead of the standard 9 pm? Sure thing just agree to a new two year contract and we can add that."

      She most likely had received a new phone but we have no proof of that. And as she doesn't have service I'd bet she'd be willing to return the phone to Verizon. Simply put the service drone(s) this lady talked to were flat wrong and insensitive. Phone companies will waive those fees if you die, and also if you can prove that you now live in an area with no service. (That's funny I thought Verizon claimed they cover everybody.) Thankfully the news media were able to talk to someone who did know the policies and quickly acted to follow them.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    114. Re:Simple really... by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "police action" of some sort.....

      That's kind of out of context. It has nothing to do with the various police actions and such.

      "Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power To ... raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

      That simply means they cannot appropriate money to the Army for more than two years at a time. It doesn't mean the Army must dissolve after that, it just means they have to have another vote on an appropriation for up to the next two years. I imagine that this is to prevent one Congress from funding the Army for 50 years in advance preventing future Congress from being able to draw them down.

    115. Re:Simple really... by torkus · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that it's 100% tax free. Any month you're deployed overseas for even a single day the entire month is tax free.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    116. Re:Simple really... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would also argue that a garbage man does more to serve 'our country' than participate in a war of aggression.

      Soldiers are putting their lives on the line. Garbage men do not.

      I could understand comparing soldiers to firemen or policemen (though even then it would be interesting to look at the stats for how risky each is... somehow, I suspect firemen are most likely to get hurt).

    117. Re:Simple really... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherently "honorable" about killing (or dying) in the name of a/your country.

      The honor isn't in killing or dying as such. The honor is in willing to pay the ultimate price for the sake of someone who isn't yourself or one of the people close and dear to you.

    118. Re:Simple really... by dwillden · · Score: 1
      No quarrel eh?

      Iraq: The quarrel dated back to their invasion of one friend (Kuwait) and threats towards another (Saudi Arabia). The reasons give in 2003 don't exactly jibe, but to say we had no quarrel is patently false.

      Afghanistan: The quarrel was directly related to 9/11 they trained there. And they were harboring a known international terrorist organization. We asked them to give up Al Qaeda and or Bin Laden but they refused. They sided with the people who had declared war on us. Thus a legitimate quarrel. Not to mention the atrocities the Taliban were committing against their own populace (specifically women) and against historical treasures within the country (Bamyan Buddhas).

      I'm not trying to debate whether or not we should be there, especially with Iraq which had no connection to 9/11, but pointing out that we did indeed have quarrels with both places and that other countries have gone to war over far less.

      As to your Constitutional claim, please cite the article and section you think backs that up. I seem to be unable to find that in my copy of the U.S. Consitution. Section 1 Section 8 states that the legislative branch has the authority:

      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      The closest part to your claim is the two year limit on the length of appropriations. That just ensures that congress frequently looks at the funding of the military, it is not a limit on how long or when we can have a standing army.


      Yes the guy gets BAH before during and after deployment, but BAH doesn't always meet the costs, it helps but especially for lower enlisted it often is insufficient for obtaining housing of sufficient size for a family.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    119. Re:Simple really... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The Taliban WAS Afghanistan's official Government and military. Any claim otherwise just shows your total ignorance.

      The Taliban Regime harbored Al Qaeda, they hosted their numerous training camps, (and participated in the training at the camps) and they helped fund the training. Then when we asked them to turn over Bin Laden to be tried in international courts (No death penalty risk, not that they cared about the death penalty) they refused. We warned them of the consequences and they still refused.

      So we started helping the other faction in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance. And with a little air support and careful use of special ops troops we removed the Taliban from power.

      But to say that they were not the official army of Afghanistan just shows how little you know.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    120. Re:Simple really... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, for one if it is sincere disgust (and I assure you, it is) it isn't a troll. Part of the problems we as a society face today are because we have ceased using person to person expressions of disgust as a feedback mechanism.

      Troll should be marked for trolling.

    121. Re:Simple really... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      "Fuck the Rule Book. -- Help some random stranger you really don't care about, who really doesn't care about you or the crap you put up with on a daily basis, which in turn places your job and livelihood at risk."

      See, I'd hope that wouldn't put someone's job at risk. Stuff like that *really* matters to me when dealing with a company. Stuff like that *keeps* me with a company. Sure when someone at a company helps me I'm very thankful to them though I can't remember any of their names by the end of the day, but they're part of what makes that company good (in my opinion) and thus the reason why I stay with that company.

      Obviously some people are going to have horror stories from companies that I deal with that I think are top-notch for customer service. When you've got that many employees, a lot of people are going to make you look bad whenever someone talks to them, hopefully you've got even more people that make you look GOOD when people talk to them.

    122. Re:Simple really... by demonbug · · Score: 1

      ... I doubt they lose that much money in early termination due to deceased individuals.

      For the record they do loose that much money. If you got a top end phone for "free" with your contract, it cost the phone company the full wholesale price.

      I'm not sure they do. I haven't seen a "top-end" phone offered for free by any of the big cell companies lately. According to iSupply, the new iPhone costs about $190 to make (parts only, say $250 with labor and shipping). Assuming they make a nice profit, I'm guessing they sell them for around $350 to AT&T (yes, I realize that AT&T is not Verizon and Verizon does not sell the iPhone, but it is the newest phone on the market so probably illustrative of worst-case costs). AT&T then turns around and sells it (with contract) for $199, meaning AT&T ate $151 which they need to make up over the 2-year contract (24 months, so about $6.30 a month).

      Just found this indicating that the Motorola Droid was about the same cost on release, suggesting the cost is pretty consistent for top-end phones. So, barring some outrageous profits for the phone makers (which seems possible for the iPhone, less-so for Android makers), it seems extremely unlikely that Verizon comes anywhere close to incurring $350 for an early termination for a single device. They probably try to justify this by using the imaginary "full retail price" (I think it is $500 or so for the Droid) as their cost basis.

    123. Re:Simple really... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Careful there. Posting facts that are unpopular will get you modded "flamebait".

    124. Re:Simple really... by Journe · · Score: 1

      I never claimed to know anything about terrorism. I'm just conjecturing based on what I've been taught by the media. It's the american way!

    125. Re:Simple really... by euroq · · Score: 1

      They don't "loose" any money except any projected difference in income between contract end and termination data, minus the cancellation fee.

      Did you hear yourself type that? You just said they don't "loose" any money, except the money they will lose. Also, you are incorrect that they won't lose any money due other than what you stated; when a carrier creates a contract with a customer, they usually agree to pay for their phone on the condition that the customer will pay them back over time. So if they just let the customer stop paying at any point, then they've basically defaulted on a loan. It's just wrapped up a little more complex than you realize.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    126. Re:Simple really... by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      As you probably didn't read on other posts, Verizon should have waived the ETF **BECAUSE** she moved to an area with no Verizon service. She agreed to pay them for service, they don't provide service and still expect her to pay? Sorry, contract law doesn't work that way. I rather doubt your cell phone contract has a clause that says "You are not allowed to move out of our service area", and if it did, you could probably get it tossed out as unconscionable.

      Wish I had some mod points. You're not insightful, just obnoxious.

      --
      ---dragoness
    127. Re:Simple really... by besalope · · Score: 1

      Too stupid huh? I put up with that job for six long years before I finally got fed up with the corporate policies enough to quit. I think the problem here is that you think that every company is guaranteed to be "customer-centric." Were some cases escalated once in awhile? Sure. Both nothing was accomplished from doing that due to the corporate office drones over-riding the actual CSR management team. As such, to not waste people time we just stuck to the rule book as it was less hassle overall.

      Sure, if you actually have a corporate back-end that actually desires to provide quality service to the customer escalation can and will help, but if you don't have the back-end support you're just wasting everyone's time.

    128. Re:Simple really... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      depends on how you borrowed the million, actually.
      If you borrowed via no recourse personal loan, that debt is gone, if you borrowed against collateral (home loan, car loan, etc.) the estate either pays the loan or surrenders the collateral.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    129. Re:Simple really... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "police action" of some sort.....

      {{Citation Needed}}

      While generally the United States Army in the 19th Century and until World War II was typically a small service (usually numbering about 20-50 thousand as a whole), there usually was at least somebody in the army at almost all times. The U.S. Navy, due to the fact that shipping concerns and access to the seas have been so crucial to commerce and industry in America, has almost always been a fairly robust service.

      The only clause regarding the military that I can find in the constitution is the following:

      Congress shall have the power to:

      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      No where in that does it suggest that a standing army is unconstitutional. There is a limit (even during wartime) for appropriations going to the Army. On a practical basis no contract that goes to the Army can be longer than two year, or it must be explicitly renewed by Congress. The purpose of that provision was to keep the Army on a very short leash seeing as the Army is the one branch of military service that is most likely to stir up an insurrection and cause a coup d'etat. The history of South America since this provision was put into the Constitution has proven this to be true as well.

      As a practical matter, the federal government was also quite lean and generally didn't have too many people on the federal payroll in general. By far and away the largest branch of the federal government except in times of war was the U.S. Postal Service... making it understandable why the Postmaster General was a secretary level position in the President's cabinet until the late 20th Century. As for why that has changed and the U.S. federal government has become this monster consuming a major portion of the GDP of America, I can give some good answers but goes beyond the point of this reply.

    130. Re:Simple really... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Gah, i just pissed away my mod-points this morning, otherwise you would have earned a +1 insightfull from me.

      Contrary to what many americans seem to believe, nations like iraq, north korea and north vietnam were/are no serious threat (they cant even put the M in MAD if they chose to go to war with the US), and what little realistic threat they pose, is mostly due to the fact that the US cant keep out of other peoples business. If you pull enough strings that dont belong to you, you are bound to end up pissing people off...

      Now i'm european, so i should be thankfull for liberating us from the germans in '45, but doing one thing right doesnt give you a free pass to go around and play shadow-puppet games around the world..

      The war in Vietnam was a proxy war (for the most part) that was done as a way to fight World War III without it having to happen in Germany and France. If you think it would have been better to have been done in Germany, at this point I'd have to agree. Perhaps Europeans would be a little more understanding of the Cold War and its implications if that had happened on a more significant level.

      As for Korea, it is important to remember that Korea is the main military invasion route between China and Japan. Just as Poland is stuck in between Germany and Russia or how Belgium was between Germany and France, Korea has played a similar role in eastern Asia military conflicts over the centuries, including during World War II as well. With America assuming responsibility for the defense of Japan, it became imperative for that concern to extend onto control of the Korean peninsula. China also became concerned that American control of that territory would adversely impact their national security, so they naturally fought back. North Korea could not, did not, and does not occupy the territory they technically occupy except as a buffer between China and Japan. It should be noted here that the war between North Korean and China vs. America and the "United Nations" armies is still not over but technically only a temporary cease fire.

      As for Iraq... that is something which is more more debatable and it is certainly a valid point that Iraq was never a direct threat to America. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has been a major thorn in the side of America for some time and the role of the Taliban in stirring up trouble sort of gave justification for the U.S. military to go into that country. For myself, I would have rather than Afghanistan would have simply been captured and out right annexed as American territory in a blatant and forthright reprisal to the attacks of 9/11. A formal declaration of war should have been passed by the American congress for that action too, but that is irrelevant at this moment in time. Such an action would have made it much easier to get things accomplished in that part of the world, however.

    131. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      If she was living in base housing she had to move out...

      If she had to move out she would probably move back to be close to her family for the support...

      She had no reason whatsoever to stay where ever her husband had been stationed

      She moved where there was no service...

      You SOOOOO right.. She should have to pay for that..

      Your an insensitive prick. You failed to think the issues through clearly. You are the troll here troll.

      Run along now.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    132. Re:Simple really... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes

      You know what I saw in the news today? A flood damaged a 3-generation house. The family spent last 30 years building, improving and investing in the house. Two weeks of intensive, heavy rain (not in typical flood area) caused a landslide, the walls cracked and the house was declared dangerous. The family is broke and homeless. And they were ordered to pay for ... demolition of the house. They can get prosecuted if then don't and they won't get a dime from insurance until they do.

      a) Life is not fair. b) Assholes are everywhere.

    133. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Honest disgust at a persons opinion should not be marked troll.

      If he wanted to be trollish such terms such as fuckhead or asshat would qualify, although I believe they probably apply to the "prick".

      He also didnt threaten him, he said he doubts he would have the courage to come out of his basement and say it to a marines face. I honestly believe that to probably be correct.

      He never said "I would beat you up" Those are words you put into his mouth.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    134. Re:Simple really... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I've never met one, but most Mob hitmen are likely much more honourable than U.S. soldiers who shoot first--and indiscriminately--and ask questions later. Killing is never acceptable, but at least a mob hitman has a single target which he or she takes out without involving innocent people. Soldiers pretend to care about that, but in reality, they always put their own lives ahead of anyone else, and almost never do they have to stand trial for their "mistakes."

      This comment is justifiably labeled as flamebait, but I'll take the bait too.

      First of all, U.S. soldiers don't just shoot first and indiscriminately. If they did, they would be court-marshaled and having to spend time in a federal prison even if they tried and didn't hit anybody. But more to the point you are missing the point of an army in the first place:

      Their job is to kill people and break things. They can do that very efficiently and will follow orders to do those things if called upon to make that effort. Killing civilians? Absolutely! If those civilians are in the way, causing problems and keeping them from performing their duties, those civilians can and should be killed... or at least frightened enough that they will run away at the mere sight of these soldiers. If you are a civilian in a war zone, you had damn well better get the hell out of Dodge and do your best to gather your family and what few possessions you care to save if those kind of guys come around.

      If you paint a line on the ground (build a fence, etc.) and give orders to a soldiers to not cross that line or to shoot anything beyond that line, they will obey those kind of orders too. They are not undisciplined rabble but they do have a job to perform.

      War is an ugly thing, and all kinds of atrocities happen in war. Even efforts to make war "civilized" (aka the Geneva Convention) are mostly an exercise in futility. It is for that reason war should not be something started for casual or minor things but it should be considered seriously and a sober discussion of unleashing that monster. That sort of serious discussion should happen among those who would provoke a military response as well.

      I will also state here very plain that an American soldier is by far and away more honorable than a soldier in almost any other army. I dare any reasonable comparison be made that is based on any real facts rather than something made up or comparing the best of one army vs. the worst of the U.S. Army.

    135. Re:Simple really... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The guy was making $45,000/year with no education and very little experience. Not too shabby for someone in their early 20s.

      The minimum education requirement to get into any branch of the U.S. military is now at least a High School Diploma or a GED and able to pass minimum literacy fluency. I wouldn't call that somebody with no education. College graduates are actually quite common among enlisted ranks as well and for some specialties in the military (even for enlisted positions) are actually required to have that kind of college level education.

      In addition, the training programs that somebody in especially the U.S. Marine Corps goes through is by far and away tougher than any kind of vocational/technical school... at least a minimum of a full year's worth of intense training that is at least the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in terms of "classroom" hours and time spent learning the trade. And that is just as an infantryman learning how to use a gun.

      As for experience, yeah I'll agree that experience is optional in the military. But it isn't a bed of roses and for somebody being lazy they certainly won't cut it in the military if they think it is an easy way to earn a quick buck. In terms of pay, a typical enlisted rank makes less than minimum wage considering the hours they work... even if you ignore overtime pay or other sorts of "extras" that are required by civilian employers for often the same job.

    136. Re:Simple really... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      but really this seems to me more like her milking her dead husband.

      Yeah, the good old times of Windows 95 and the Rolling Stones...

    137. Re:Simple really... by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      Verizon would be big enough to subscribe to one of the Mortality Suppressions lists if it wanted to. This is what most large consumer subscriptions companies use to prevent fuck-ups like this.

      So in short, it's absolutely Verizon's fault. They could have prevented it, and they deserve all the derision they get.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    138. Re:Simple really... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      By "no education" I was referring to higher education, which I figured was a given for any western culture.

      I earned an undergrad degree THEN joined the Army as an enlisted man. You have no idea how many of us there were, nor did our superior officers, unfortunately.

      So I stand by my original point (flamebait?? Really?) that 45k a year is very good pay for somebody with no higher education and no experience. I only earned $47k a year AFTER four years of college and 12 years in the Army.

      Honestly, this is not meant as flamebait, but when I was in the lower ranks, I NEVER considered any of us to be underpaid. I honestly believe the general public has no idea how well the military pays its lower ranking folks.

    139. Re:Simple really... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually no. The reason one shouldn't use such words casually is because you then have no way to express utter contempt. Personally, I *do* reserve such words for cases where I feel utter contempt.

      Perhaps others have a sophomoric understanding of the nuances of "those words", but I can't really help that!

    140. Re:Simple really... by alexo · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny how 'serving your country' means being a soldier and not, say, being a cop.

      Because cops mostly look after their own interests?

    141. Re:Simple really... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The requirement for a HS Diploma didn't really happen until about the time of the Gulf War, where previously there genuinely was no education requirement. As far as I know, military service in lieu of prison time (for first time felons still in their younger 20's) isn't an option any more either... although it used to be.

      I'd agree that the situation for lower enlisted ranks has improved considerably and the military certainly recognizes that these are citizens in uniform rather than a life form barely better than a slave. At least congressmen recognize this fact and that is reflected with the pay + benefits. Congress recognizes that parents & grandparents of military service personnel represent significant constituents, and (fortunately/unfortunately) many of them even have served in the military knowing what it at least used to be like while in the service.

      One of the things that is keeping pay up at the moment is the volunteer service, where there is no desire at all to bring back the draft... which could in theory bring in the numbers needed to sustain recruiting numbers, but at the same time that is neither popular in the halls of Congress nor in the Pentagon. About the only people advocating the draft are those who have a political axe to grind and have no thought about what that would do any of the branches of the military, and especially the Army (where the draft would most likely be used in first).

    142. Re:Simple really... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Im a vet.

      The people you serve with are like family.. in fact they are often closer then family.

      Someone talks bad about someone that you loved like a brother, There is a damn good chance hes gonna get his ass whooped.

      There are people that I deployed with that didnt make it back, If I heard someone talking shit about them, especially baseless hateful shit, I would fucking hit them too.

      You setting up straw man arguments. Stick to the facts..

      The people talking shit have no way to know if they are right.. they are saying it to be hateful.

      If someone was being hateful to your family, your telling me you wouldnt have the slightest urge to hit them? I call bull shit.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    143. Re:Simple really... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Actually I am a foreigner that happens to dislike your government, the exact person from whom your troops are "protecting" you.

      I live in US, do some very productive work, and most likely did more to improve Americans' lives than all your military combined.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    144. Re:Simple really... by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      "Option C: Escalation. Call your manager over "

      As a person who worked several horrible months as a non-profit telemarketer (95% went to us, 5% to the target... sigh), I can tell you that escalation gets you fired.

      Hell, I was fired for "Being too nice". I would not immediately hang up on people, saying things like "Thank you", and "Well thanks for your time", etc, which apparently took too long.

      Of course, the most loved employees were the ones who lied out their ass, who said anything to get an extra $5.

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    145. Re:Simple really... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > So you're ok with a couple of thousand people dying from an attack every so often? You sir are a prick. You wouldn't even have the right to spank
      > it to pr0n all day if "assholes like this guy" didn't die protecting freedoms for worthless punks like you.

      I never said I was ok with a couple of thousand people dying from an attack. You said that. I simply said we shouldn't blow it out of proportion and use it as an excuse to go around behaving just as badly. I thoroughly reject "eye for an eye" policy as counterproductive.

      I think its instructive to look at the motivations of such attacks and what makes them likely or unlikely. OBL isn't out to just "kill people". He doesn't really care if he kills 0 people, or 1 million, he is fighting a war with a goal in mind. An attack that kills none, but furthers his goal is better than one that kills 1000 and weakens his position.

      If his men convince some fool to try and blow up a bomb, say, in times square on Christmases day (just to you know, pick something totally out of the blue) and it fails, but we plaster it all over the news and use it to justify more spending and more restrictions on our own people, then, he wins not just the day, but the month or year. All he has to do is keep looking active and looking dangerous, as we collectively piss ourselves and beg the strong military men to take care of the big bad bogeyman.

      I just don't see the real threat here. It would take something the size of 9/11 at least a few times a year before I would be willing to call them a major threat.

      Its all just finding justification, a government mans wet dream.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    146. Re:Simple really... by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Oh, you've got to be kidding me...haha...

      Sorry, but you're the gullible idiot.

      The US Geological Survey team found the mineral deposits, and it's been widely reported in the press. Do you really think, the Afghanistan government is going to sit by and let the US take it? How naive are you? *sigh*. Everybody's eyes are on how the situation will play out. If this was some grand conspiracy, do you really think they'd advertise to the world, oh gee, look, we found mineral deposits?

      The Afghanistan government isn't exactly in bed with the US administration - they have their differences, and they've certainly never been afraid to express those.

      You're nearly as bad as those idiots who think the Iraq war was for oil. Urgh, I don't get it, don't they teach logic or reasoning in US schools anymore?

      They spent hundreds of *billions* on the war. They're *never* going to recoup that on oil. A fifth-grader, at least in my country, could tell you that if you spend $10 to get $2, you're an idiot. That, and the Iraq government already has dibbs on it. Last time I checked, it was a democracy in Iraq - they're not in bed with the US, and there's been quite open disagreements between the US and Iraq's new government. They're not just going to hand it over to us.

      And then look at Afghanistan. So what, NATO is part of this grand conspiracy to get Afghanistan's minerals? Please. The whole world knows about the mineral deposits now, and everybody's eyes are on it. I somehow doubt the US, as mighty as it's military might be, can somehow smuggle out a trillion dollars of mineral deposits out of the country. And the Afghanistan government certainly isn't goign to hand it over.

      You conspiracy theory nutjobs are really ridiculous. It's nearly as bad as those idiots who think the World Trade Centre was an inside job. Urgh.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    147. Re:Simple really... by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Actually I am a foreigner that happens to dislike your government, the exact person from whom your troops are "protecting" you.

      I live in US, do some very productive work, and most likely did more to improve Americans' lives than all your military combined.

      And you are humble to boot.

  3. Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by papasui · · Score: 2, Insightful

    doesn't exempt you from all commitments. I feel bad for her that she lost her husband but a contract is an obligation. There's a reason we have life insurance policies, you know, so you can pay some bills after your spouse dies.

    1. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by BlueKitties · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because you have a legally binding contract doesn't give you the right to be a dick.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    2. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the ETF is already unfairly high and the dude died serving his country.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except in this case Verizon sporadically decided to change the commitment, after the contract was already in place, in other words, the ETF fee used to not be charged under such circumstances but they revised the contract through (informal) policy change:

      "Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device.

      Verizon's reply: "This was an old policy that needed updating, a leftover from before our network covered over 300 million out of the 305 million or so people in the U.S. "There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today. Second, if a customer buys a device from us at a deep discount in return for a two-year contract, and then decides to cancel service because he or she moves outside of that coverage area (likely out of the country, given the breadth of our coverage area), then the ETF helps us recoup our losses associated with the customer's early cancellation. This policy change was made in April and applies to very few people. We also have other ways of handling exceptions such as military -- Verizon Wireless waives the ETF for deployed military personnel."

    4. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      IME, when it's a relatively small sum of money most companies will write it off when the person who's involved has died. Life insurance is generally used for those things that are so big that it's utterly unreasonable to expect that (eg. a mortgage).

    5. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Legally, you are right. But what is 300 bucks to a multi-billion dollar company? They can afford to have a bit of a heart.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by visualight · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that Verizon does not have coverage in her home town is the important factor -the death of her husband caused her to move, but the _move_ prompted the early termination.

      Ever bought a membership at a health club? I did, just two months before my job forced me to move to another state. Trying to cancel was like asking a loan shark for forgiveness. I think exceptions for circumstances like these should be standard in long term contracts.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    7. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >unilateral contract change, effectively a contract of adhesion

      A customer cannot unilaterally change the contract with Verizon.

      What gives Verizon the right to play Calvinball with contract law?

      --
      BMO

    8. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with the parent, troll or not. People die all the fucking time, and I hear it's something of a hazard in this specific profession.

      --
      Do you see what I did there?
    9. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by T+Murphy · · Score: 2

      So they changed the policy once they realized few enough people would be hit by the ETF they could get away with it and not get a PR nightmare, as opposed to realizing those affected would be few enough that it wouldn't cost them much to eat the contract. I understand recouping the cost of the phone, but they could always offer to have the customer cover a portion of that cost (based on how much contract is left), or offer to waive the ETF as long as the phone is returned if the contract is relatively new.

      By trying to milk every last dollar out of leaving customers it's like saying "and never come back".

    10. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by ThreeGigs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the person involved in this case _didn't_ die. She's alive and well. She wants to move because her husband died. Her husband didn't have a Verizon contract, she did.

      Oddly, when I moved overseas, I was able to cancel my contract with no fee because VZW didn't provide service where I was going. Had they provided service, I would have had to pay. I expected to pay though, and when the rep told me I didn't I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, I believe the $350 in her case was the subsidized cost of her phone, so VZW might be losing money here, depending on how long she had the contract/phone. My cheapie had been long since paid off, and I only had a few months remaining.

    11. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      A large legal department and the fact it would cost more money to sue them over it than it would to just pay.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    12. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called compassion.

      Since Corporations are now considered 'persons' under the law, perhaps we should expect them to show certain levels of humanity that most of us would display.

      /asking too much, I know

      Communist!

      Or at least socialist.

      Anti-capitalist for sure...

      I mean, expecting anything else than 100% self-interest is just stupid, or you're suggesting we (gasp) hinder free enterprise!

      (If the sacrasm was too high, here's the breakdown: I sincerely believe the parents sentiments are diametrically opposed to, and cannot exist alongside, an absolutely free enterprise-model of society, in the veins of the American ideal as it is often touted. I also believe parent is right).

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    13. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I dunno... a little bad luck might not but BEING DEAD probably does.

      Someone probably realized that some sort of consumer protection regulation might be in force here or they were in some grey area of contracts.

      I doubt the fear of public outcry or a public outcry large enough to get the relevant laws changed would be sufficient motivation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow...

      There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today

      So.. because the policy is now costing them less, they need get rid of it?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The ETF isn't that unreasonable given that the $350 fee is for people who got a phone for at least $350 less than it should have cost them. I got a $600 phone for $175. The rest is a debt to be paid as part of the phone bill or via the ETF if I leave. Second, if my wife died regardless the reason, I wouldn't expect them to waive the ETF for my phone service.

    16. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by mike260 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't see how parent post is a troll. Fact is, she got $100,000 from the US government for *exactly this reason* - so that she doesn't have to worry about money hassles on top of the grief and upheaval.

      If she's angry and wants to lash out at Verizon for daring to send her a bill then that's perfectly understandable, but the parent's point stands: War-widows, although deserving of sympathy and respect, are not above having to pay their bills.

    17. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by mike260 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing about compassion is that it's given freely, not demanded as a right nor extorted under threat of bad publicity.

    18. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the ETF is already unfairly high and the dude died serving his country.

      Yes, early termination fees are very much a cash cow for telecomms companies.

      Discounting PR (which we dare not do, of course), the cause of death is irrelevant in principle. Can you list the fees that war widows should be exempt from? Why should firefighters and coastguards and (insert your apotheosis of quiet, unassuming American fortitude here) pay more to pay for war widows discounts?

      No private company in the US exists to serve the nation. They are private companies and exist to make money for the shareholders.

      If they "served the nation" they would be government run, and would therefore be hated by the same people spouting unthinking righteous anger at Verizon's "unpatriotic greed".

      The less PR savvy war widows out there will get nothing

      To make this fair there should be a govt fund to meet such expenses as relocating to your own home town after being widowed.

      How many of your tax dollars would you vote for spending on such a scheme?

      It does make a change to see "Why Do You Hate America?" being used on the private sector and not on education or public sector, though.

    19. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The ETF isn't that unreasonable given that the $350 fee is for people who got a phone for at least $350 less than it should have cost them.

      Yeah, that's why the equation they use is $350 - (($350 / 48) * NumberOfMonthsUsed), right?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    20. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yes, early termination fees are very much a cash cow for telecomms companies.

      I'm guessing you didn't follow any of the ETF bullshit that has been happening over the last two years.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by glebovitz · · Score: 1

      Actually, it IS covered by corporate policy. Almost all communications companies have special arrangements for servicemen. The CSR was being a dick, which means Verizon was being a dick.

    22. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by eiMichael · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Verizon is showing no compassion. What she's done is screw with them just as hard as they were screwing with her. What's cheaper to her, a phone call to a tv station, or $350?

    23. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    24. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills? Hey, cancel her credit cards, her mortgage, student loans, car loan - all of her debt is vanished because her husband died! That's not how it works, nor should it. A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    25. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but the bad PR probably cost them 10,000 new accounts. When your company depends on reputation, it's expensive being a dick to spouses of dead soldiers.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    26. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 1

      So, you think that because her husband died...

      No.

      I think that we have an overall problem with the way we are running our societies. The most powerful individuals in it are fictitious, and by definition uncaring and inhuman.
      I am basically just saying we should not let them run things...

      (The current case is not so interesting, to my point - my initial parent's comment was).

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    27. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The most powerful individuals in it are fictitious, and by definition uncaring and inhuman.

      Caring has nothing to do with the matter at hand. She had a contract that requires a fee of $X if she broke it. She is more than able to pay the fee and she broke it. She should be required to pay up. If it was some insane circumstance where she had no job and no savings at all and every last penny she had went to pay for her husbands funeral (which would actually be paid by the government, but this is hypothetical), then yes, I'd say that Verizon should be nice and not make her pay. That's not the case though. She's exploiting her husbands death to not pay her bills that she's fully capable of paying.

      I am basically just saying we should not let them run things...

      If you don't like company X or industry Y, then don't do business with them and they won't "run things". No one made her get a cell phone and no one made her break her contract. Those were her choices and hers alone. You're arguing that she should be exempted from the consequences of her actions because her husband died, which is sad, yet irrelevant to her paying her cell phone bill.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    28. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      These folk must get scalped by the RIAA legal team all the time.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    29. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 1

      Caring has nothing to do with the matter at hand...

      Well. As I said:

      (The current case is not so interesting, to my point - my initial parent's comment was).

      ...it is, in fact, exactly the matter which I was addressing. You may want to discuss something else, and you are certainly entitled to do so. But simply responding in this thread does not make the subject at hand whatever you would like it to be. I am, to repeat myself, talking about the comment implying that corporations as legal 'persons' with more power than anything else on the planet is problematic as they have no humanity.

      Which bring me to:

      I am basically just saying we should not let them run things...

      If you don't like company X or industry Y, then don't do business with them and they won't "run things".

      Yes they will. Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour. And whether I do business with Microsoft or not, they will work to destroy Free Software. And whether I use a bike or car, we are running out of oil soon. Etc. Etc. Your position is only valid if I were the only consumer on the planet!

      No one made her get a cell phone and no one made her break her contract. Those were her choices and hers alone. You're arguing that she should be exempted from the consequences of her actions because her husband died, which is sad, yet irrelevant to her paying her cell phone bill.

      I am really not. And I never was. Check the discussion again. You will find you are the only one talking about this particular case, and that I am talking about what happens when corporations, which by definition have no morals or humanity, decide how to run the planet.

      I am not going to respond to any more messages about this woman and Verizon - the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion. And that they do not even care about 'the decent thing' in that case, but only about... public opinion. As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!

      Anyway, I will gladly discuss my position on the free enterprise model, if you wish... But please stop assuming I am somehow 'for' this woman. I couldn't care less about her phone bill...

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    30. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills?

      Yes, we should all care more for widows and orphans...
      The world would be a better place...

    31. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.

      Nike, nor any other business that I'm aware of, uses slave labor. Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor. There's an incident recently of a tuna company being required by people like you to raise wages in an asian factory - as a result, they cut labor. Before, they were paying the normal rate in that country and employing thousands of people. Now they pay more and they dramatically cut the number of people working. I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.

      And whether I use a bike or car, we are running out of oil soon

      I want us off oil mostly because I despise OPEC and it would give certain political groups a lot less power to push their other ideas. However, the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.

      the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.

      No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.

      As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!

      Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook. Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.

      If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact with people again.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    32. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 1

      Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.

      Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor.

      Of course not. But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.

      ...I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.

      This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma. Read up on those and you can come back to apologise...

      ...the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.

      My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly?
      Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.

      ...the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.

      No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.

      Sigh. I never said she should not pay her bill. Never.

      You have, again, misunderstood my position. Please try to read my posts more carefully - this is at least the third time this happens to you...

      In fact, following the sentence you quoted, I said the exact same thing you are going on about here: that what Verizon did had nothing to do with being decent, but had to do with being perceived as decent.

      You even quote it:

      As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!

      Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook.

      No, I never said the latter part.

      Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.

      OK. I'd state it this way: Corporations doing something bad is not a lonely incidents, but a natural consequence of being what they are; only interested in profit.
      Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.

      You say you want to 'go after them when they do something bad' - I am pointing out that it is in the inherent nature of a corporations to be 100% self-interested. And that such self-interest will of course hurt people (when there is no camera).

      If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact w

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    33. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear:

      So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills?

      No.

      A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.

      I agree completely.

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    34. Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. by Lundse · · Score: 1

      But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.

      Actually if you bothered to do some research, you'd find that the conditions you use in your argument don't exist. The employees may be far from rich, but having a $3 / hr job in a 3rd world country provides food and shelter.

      I would love to live in your world. When does the next shuttle leave?

      Are you seriously saying that no one is going hungry or deprived of basic human needs and dignity, while working at consumer goods for the Western world? Seriously?

      I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.

      This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma.

      No, it's not. It's economics and facts (you know, economics, the study people like you despise because it shatters your delusions about the world). Idiots spouting off the same crap as you cause wages to be artificially inflated and as a result, people lose their jobs. Read some economics textbooks and you might learn something.

      It is a strawman because I never 'decided what was best' for anyone, and did not cause the problems you claim exist.
      It is an ad hominem attack because you are trying to paint me as arrogant.
      It is a false dilemma because you are bundling all solutions to the problem of underpaid labourers together as all failing.

      It is arrogant because you you have no knowledge of what solutions I would point to, and hence no idea what effects they would cause.

      It is misguided and stupid for all the above reasons.

      My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly?
      Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.

      First, I never said oil was infinite, merely that we're not "running out of it soon". Second, if you learned to read, you'd see that you DID say that it will soon run out. Don't believe me? Go back and read your previous post. Not only are you spouting off fanatic BS as "fact", you then lie and say you never said that afterwards.

      Right. Sorry about the 'soon' part. My position is and was that we will run out, and that our consumption is not going down in anything remotely close to a curve that will make this event anything less than catastrophic.

      I did not mean 'soon' as in any hard prediction - like the fearmongering you referred to, does. I am sorry that I did not catch the understandable confusion between the two.

      Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.

      Not only is that false, it proves your anti-corporation fanaticism. Your argument is that all corporations are evil because they are corporations. That's one of the most fallacious arguments imaginable.

      That would be a circular argument, yes. But is is not the one I put forward. My argument is simple:
      1) A corporation will do anything to make profit, if it does less than anything possible, it's shareholders will either change it's leadership, or abandon it for a corporation that is willing to do anything.
      2) Willingness to do anything includes the willingness to ignore all other considerations.
      3) A corporation has no considerations for "doing the decent thing", unless that _incidentally_ is part of a plan to make the most profit (typically for PR reasons).

      You can either point of what is wrong wit

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
  4. Let your wallet speak. by BlueKitties · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I purchased a Motoroal Droid when it came out last year. Shortly after mentioning my purchase, I got a number of warnings about their billing department. Concerned, and also pissed at Verizon, I decided to return it for a full refund (it was well within two days of buying.) Shorty after, I got a huge termination fee, coupled with data charges in the megabytes (I literally never even used it with any 3G service.) and activation fees, even though it was clearly stated I wasn't supposed to be charged. It took upwards of four calls before the charges were removed from my account. Needless to say, I'm glad I did it, especially after seeing more bologna like this. Maybe one day they will realize that for each angry customer like me who cancels, they lose far more than the $350 termination fee.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:Let your wallet speak. by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      I'll trade you that bologna for some baloney.

      It's always best to do your research before signing a contract.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Let your wallet speak. by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      I agree, it was very reckless of me. It was actually the day news hit the fans about Verizon doubling their termination fee, so the huge onslaught of negative PR hadn't hit the fans when I signed. But still, I entirely agree with you, it was a terrible judgement call on my part and I've done my best to ensure it never happens again.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  5. Follow the leader... by PPalmgren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why its bad to give zero authority to the peons at the bottom of your organization. In an effort to restrict decisions to higher-ups and make low-level decisions 95% predictable, you get bit in the ass with bad PR that can cost millions in damages, only because the first two or three people closest to the customer aren't allowed to make braindead obvious decisions.

    You can almost always tell a corporate culture by calling their customer support.

    1. Re:Follow the leader... by jcookeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. These absurd "policies" are pushed from the top down. It's called "maximum return for shareholders." The moment companies took this philosophy, it was all downhill sense. Big, evil corporations are only concerned with maximum return, and they drive these principles within. It's just a teeny tiny example of the erosion within US corporations and finance. It's just a simple indication of why the "global crisis" happened. Pure greed.

    2. Re:Follow the leader... by Renraku · · Score: 1

      The reason the peons at the bottom have almost no authority is because they have so little vested interest in the company. If Verizon were to suddenly disappear, the least affected employees would be the ones in the entry level jobs and the higher ups. Everyone else gets to reboot their careers.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Follow the leader... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      No, the main problem was stated above. It doesn't help shareholders, it harms them. The problem is that due to government grants and the like, Verizon was pretty much given taxpayer money (Remember, Verizon basically was a spin-off of AT&T) to gain a huge amount of infrastructure and initial capital. So because of this, it is not immediately obvious that a lost customer costs them lots of money, because of this in its early years, it eventually turned into this.

      And really, honestly, I don't understand why everyone is all upset about this for. This is what life insurance is supposed to cover, bills.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Follow the leader... by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those with no decision power CAN escalate it up the food chain to someone that does.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Follow the leader... by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those with no decision power CAN escalate it up the food chain to someone that does.

      Sure they can. And after they've done that a few times, they can be invited to seek out exciting new opportunities as a Hygiene Technician (Fryer Specialist) at Burger King.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Follow the leader... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the problem is the opposite. I worked at Fisher-Price and after Mattel took us over and things went to shit, they not only imposed those stupid time limits on phone calls (meaning, I couldn't actually take the time to SOLVE THE CUSTOMERS' PROBLEM...) but also they fired a layer of middle management.

      So now, responsibilities of middle management were given to us peons - yet of course we still had the new time limits so we had to cram in being the "supervisor" in the normal call timeframe... PLUS of course we had extra work to do, middle managers' work, without a pay increase.

      That's when I learned that in a corporation "empowering" you meant giving you management responsibilities without management pay.

      --
      This space available.
    7. Re:Follow the leader... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And that open ticket is going to hit their closing average hard. There is no reason for a front-line phone person to be accommodating, or to do anything but close the open ticket as quickly as possible. And the same goes for the first two tiers of managers as well.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    8. Re:Follow the leader... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the reason the peon's are at the bottom is because they lack the mental capacity to make the correct decisions in obvious situations like this so they're trained to follow whatever it says on the screen, or in the manual. Those that are capable, eventually move out of being a peon. Not everyone is as smart as you think them to be

    9. Re:Follow the leader... by boxwood · · Score: 1

      it has nothing to do with government grants and everything to do with corporate culture. The priority now is marketing and getting new customers. Supporting the customers you have already? Thats the lowest priority. They all outsource that to whichever call center can do it the cheapest. Its like taking out the trash: it has to be done but its not as glamorous as a snazzy ad campaign. None of the big corporations regard this as priority regardless of whether they've gotten government money in the past.

      The logic is this: if you're calling for support, you've already bought the product. They've already made their money from you. So giving you good support is just costing them money. They have done all the market research and they know that very few people buy a product because of good support. Its just playing the percentages. Maybe only 3% of the a certain model will have issues needing support. The have some people on the phone following the script that will resolve 90% of these issues. The other 20%? well you need some more technical people for that. Those people demand twice as much pay as the people just following a script. The look at the cost of having those people on staff vs. how much money they'll lose if the ~%0.3 don't get their issue resolved. That %0.3 have had an issue with the product which was not easily resolved, so there's a strong likelihood they aren't going to but more of their products even if the company makes a herculean effort and manages to fix all the problems and give good customer support.

      There are some issues that costs the company more to resolve than the lost future profits you would make of that customer. Those issues don't get fixed. Sucks if you have an issue that occurs 0.3% of the time. But it cuts into the corporation's profits to deal with it, so they choose not to deal with it.

      With many industries, good support is incompatible with maximizing profits.

      Don't blame the government for bad support from verizon. They've done the calculations, and the support they provide maximizes profits.

    10. Re:Follow the leader... by boxwood · · Score: 1

      maybe they should hire smarter peons.

      or maybe the management isn't smart enough to hire qualified people.

  6. Clarification: by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    That's the VZW rep.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  7. What does being a widow have to do with anything? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk about playing the sympathy card.

    Now, I'm sure Verizon should have been more flexible here, but not because she was a widow. Because the early termination fee is unfair in this circumstance. Do others get to be treated unfairly because they haven't had a bereavement?

  8. Early termination by techmuse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Death is a form of early termination. Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?

    1. Re:Early termination by butlerm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?

      Yes, but that doesn't mean your estate is off the hook. If you have any assets in your name when you die, those assets must be applied to any outstanding debts. That is what probate is all about. The reminder goes to your heirs.

    2. Re:Early termination by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Your estate has to pay.

    3. Re:Early termination by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except she (the contractee) didn't die. Her husband did.

    4. Re:Early termination by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends on if it was the widow or the dead husband who initially entered into the contract.

  9. The Verizon Ouija Board. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The Verizon Ouija Board: Because passing away shouldn't mean you lose contact with your relatives.

    Verizon Wireless: More coverage than any other provider. Literally.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  10. Yeah... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually it does.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Yeah... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      True, I guess, but you don't even need a contract to have the legal right to be a dick.

    2. Re:Yeah... by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Lady English is displeased with me, I see. Very well: it does not mean you are exempt from your social obligation to be courteous to a widow.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    3. Re:Yeah... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in spirit. But social niceties have no place in matters of law. For humanitarian reasons Verizon should waive the fee. However, they have no legal obligation to do so. They are within their rights to enforce the contract.

      If I were to die right now my wife would still have to pay on our car, college loans, etc. Nobody waives your debts when you die. That's why they refer to your assets after you expire as your estate, so that liens can be placed against it and the creditors you leave behind can collect their due.

      I agree that Verizon is taking their "early termination" clause to a ridiculous extreme. The purpose of an early termination fee is that it is a penalty which makes it difficult for you to switch carriers, and clearly the deceased has other reasons for dropping service. But still - the contract is valid and binding even after death.

      This is why life insurance is vitally important.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    4. Re:Yeah... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      "Funny thing about this signed document... it was never notarized" -- Lucy Van Pelt

    5. Re:Yeah... by brusk · · Score: 1

      I agree that Verizon is taking their "early termination" clause to a ridiculous extreme. The purpose of an early termination fee is that it is a penalty which makes it difficult for you to switch carriers, and clearly the deceased has other reasons for dropping service. But still - the contract is valid and binding even after death.

      Actually the ETF has two purposes, to make switching hard but also to spread the sunk cost of the hardware over the contract period. If the phone is a relatively expensive device that the user receives at a subsidized price (or free), he's paying for it (in part) over the course of the contract, and the ETF is a way for the provider to recapture that cost.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    6. Re:Yeah... by MurphyZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the person has the right to burn down Verizon property worth millions following their dickish actions. Sure they'll have the right to remain silent afterwards, and the right to an attorney and all those other rights. And in the unlikely event they get a good enough attorney they'll have to walk around free. As you see, the right to be an asshole often leads to negative actions. Unfortunately, not often enough nor negative enough in the case of businesses. Oil companies come to mind right now. Cell phone carriers are close behind. Those two are by no means an exhaustive list.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
    7. Re:Yeah... by elsJake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But _her_ Verizon cell phone does not have service in the small town. "

      It's not the deceased's phone , it's hers. This is the reason they're charging it , and the reason for them not caring about a death certificate , it's not the dead man's account.

      As far as i can read proper English the article said:

      Soldier dies. Widow moves. Widow has contract ,Widow decides to cancel contract.

      I'm sorry to say but the whole article seems to have been written to stirr up some bad shit when the soldier didn't have anything to do with any contracts / Verizon. Sure it wouldn't have hurt them to show a little compassion but they weren't absurd as they are not charging the soldier but the window who is a party in the contract.
      It could've been his brother , mother or any other relative that moved , should Verizon also cancel their early termination fee ? What about his cousin ? How does a corporation draw the line between making a profit and acting humane ?

    8. Re:Yeah... by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      Correction: your estate would have to pay your outstanding debts, not your wife, kids or other relatives. Once your estate has been exhausted, they don't owe a damn thing, because it's not THEIR debt. If there's any leftovers of your estate after creditors are paid, your heirs get it.

      I feel obliged to point this out because credit card companies are notorious for pressuring survivors to pay off the deceased's credit debt, even if it the survivor had no legal tie to debt (wasn't a co-signer). A friend of mine whose middle-aged mother died unexpectedly found herself in that situation; fortunately, she had friends who were able to advise her that she could tell the collectors trying to make her personally pay off her mother's debts to go take a flying leap, because she didn't legally owe anything and couldn't be made to pay.

      Caveat: in the specific case of a spouse, community property laws probably complicate things. IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

      --
      ---dragoness
  11. Entitlement complex by Irick · · Score: 1

    Seriously, legal obligations are still obligations regardless of whatever you may be experiencing. If anything this just undermines the death of her husband. Now, if they were trying to charge her for her _husband's_ early termination (no horrible, horrible pun intended) then i can see being up in a huff

  12. Free Marketroid Answer by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "She should have predicted this when she signed up for Verizon"

    --
    BMO

  13. The evil of early termination fees by butlerm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.

    1. Re:The evil of early termination fees by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.

      Someone made an observation last week that I thought was especially telling (wish I could credit the source). I'm basically paraphrasing here ..

      I get through the 2 year contract which pays for the phone. So how come my rates don't go down in the third year if I keep the same phone?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:The evil of early termination fees by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      I get through the 2 year contract which pays for the phone. So how come my rates don't go down in the third year if I keep the same phone?

      In everywhere except America, they do. I suspect the reasons your networks can get away with it are:

      1. No real competition, partly due to the GSM / CDMA issue, and partly because it isn't as well regulated as in other countries. For example in the UK it used to be that you couldn't keep the same phone number when you change providers. Government changed the rules so that you can now.

      2. The fact that the price of the phone is spread across your contract seems to be better obscured. There are lots of people in the UK who really think some phones are free, and the iPhone is £99, but it seems in American *everyone* thinks that.

    3. Re:The evil of early termination fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      With T-mobile they do go down.

    4. Re:The evil of early termination fees by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      They won't go down automatically, but all the networks offer SIM-only tariffs that are cheaper than the equivalent contract+phone tariff, and it's pretty easy to switch. The added bonus, in the context of this article, is that they're usually also available with a minimum duration of 30 days, so there's no early termination fee.

  14. Bad choice of words by Samy+Merchi · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Early termination" fee?

    Lol.

  15. Guys! You are missing the point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Specifically, what is the widow's phone number? I want to, um, console her.

  16. I'm with Verizon by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue isn't that the guy died and the widow wanted to cancel the contract. If that were so, I'd totally be with her.

    It's that she decided to up and move and canceled the contract because where she decided to move didn't have service. That, is her fault only.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:I'm with Verizon by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Widow moves out of service area, gets early termination fee on canceled contract."

      Would be a more appropriate, albeit less sensational headline.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:I'm with Verizon by carlzum · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I moved out of my DSL provider's service area (Speakeasy), I didn't have to pay the early termination fee. It wasn't my fault they were unable to provide the service.

    3. Re:I'm with Verizon by glwtta · · Score: 1

      "Widow moves out of service area, gets early termination fee on canceled contract waived."

      Would be more accurate.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:I'm with Verizon by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Really? So because some terrorist killed her husband, you say she's leading a bad life? Troll.

    5. Re:I'm with Verizon by pnaro · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I moved to a location that AT&T didn't cover and they had no problem whatever in canceling the contract without an early termination fee. In fact, they TOLD me they weren't going to charge me the fee. All I did was give them the address of the new place and they verified it on the phone. No issues at all.

      --
      If we can't fix it, we'll fix it so nobody else can!
    6. Re:I'm with Verizon by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Terrorist? How do you know he didn't get fragged? :p

    7. Re:I'm with Verizon by excelblue · · Score: 1

      Even then, most of the companies I've seen (inc'l T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T) waive the ETF if you move to an area without coverage. This is regardless of any other situation.

    8. Re:I'm with Verizon by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      That's because AT&T coverage sucks. They don't want that constantly paraded in the news so they have policy in place to deal with it.

    9. Re:I'm with Verizon by cynyr · · Score: 1

      isn't it somewhat verison's fault that they don't provide coverage at her new location? What if she had been told by her work "move here or loose your job"? I would say that moving outside of coverage area is a valid reason to terminate the contract, if it's an issue of hardware costs, ask her to return the phone, so they could recoup the losses by selling it used.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  17. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like Louis C.K said in his "Being Broke" monologue about the rich guys listening to it: "Well, yeah, you are financially irresponsible and you have to pay the price, I don't frankly... see why you are angry about it. The bank has the right to accrue a fee, clearly..."

  18. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by roman_mir · · Score: 1
  19. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah man, this is America. Pay up.

    No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.

    This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.

    Pay up.

  20. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So he died. Get over it.

    Congratulations! That's about the most insensitive thing you could say to a grieving widow. From TFA:

    Michaela's father, a veteran himself, is outraged. "It's not about the money. I don't care about the money. It's the principle. The man was overseas fighting for our country and lost his life doing so," said Kevin Gause. "It's heartless what Verizon is doing."

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  21. Early Termination Fee by Renraku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Early Termination fee is two things. One, it's a way for the company to recoup their costs of you running off with a smart phone that retails for $500+. Two, it's a way for them to ensure that none of their sheep go running off to other pastures as soon as they look a little greener. They've pretty much figured out that two years is the optimal length for a contract. Long enough to where you'll have their income coming in for a while and can make plans around that, but short enough to where you'll splurge for the most expensive phone every two years (with new two year contract, of course!) because you've had two years to save up for it.

    I think a reboot of the cell phone industry really needs to happen here in the United States. I can go to Walmart right now and buy a prepaid phone for $20 or so with lots of features. Or I can go buy the same one at a cell phone store that's linked ONLY to one provider and costs $100. Free with two year plan, though..

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Early Termination Fee by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can I get a smart phone (iPhone or an Android phone) that's prepaid in the US? I don't think that's currently possible. There's a lot about our cellphone industry that needs to change, from text message rates and the absurd markup on wireless data plans, to predatory contracts and schemes to hide their price gouging on handsets. Unfortunately, they have the money, which means we'll never get sane regulation of this industry which has proven that it is incapable of acting fairly and honestly. Just another example of a market outcome that benefits a few people at the top of a huge corporation, while leaving the rest of us with no viable option for something that is effectively a requirement to get by these days.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Early Termination Fee by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Until the baby bells get the 'no pre-paid phones' legislation. Right now they want an ID required. But with billions of profit on the line I'm sure they're lobbying hard to get rid of prepaid entirely.

    3. Re:Early Termination Fee by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Actually I believe the only thing missing on the Blackberry is BES. All of their other phones are locked down, though.
      But they force you to buy their $300 version rather than buying a used Sprint one.

    4. Re:Early Termination Fee by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      First, the smartphone plan is $50 (at least around here). Second, it's only 2G right now. Third, they'll apparently flash some phones in some areas (not around here), but won't support data access on those (at least according to their website).

  22. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her. This has no remaining value for them.

    Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?

  23. is there a list somewhere? by yyxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I feel sorry for her loss. However, I'm a bit unclear about the reasoning behind this. For which fees, financial obligations, and loans is it unpatriotic to ask for repayment?

    Waiving such fees is a nice thing to do; it expresses gratitude for the sacrifices that our military makes.

    However, I start feeling uncomfortable when members of the military start talking about it as if it were an entitlement or obligation.

    1. Re:is there a list somewhere? by careysb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Re-payment"? We're talking about future obligation here, not repayment of a loan. All contracts pertaining to future obligations should be canceled upon death, military or not.

    2. Re:is there a list somewhere? by Xarius · · Score: 1

      This woman didn't die, her husband did.

      It's her own contract she doesn't want to pay the termination fee on and she's trying to use her husband's death to guilt-trip Verizon into waiving the fee. Pretty tacky really.

      --
      C17H21NO4
  24. Re:And as soon as there's publicity... by Lundse · · Score: 2, Funny

    the company responded saying, " Verizon Wireless has long supported our troops.... Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."

    Huh. So Verizon, as a company, now has a public opinion, not only on supporting our troops, but on the effectiveness of prayer?

    Am I being overly sensitive, or is that just a bit odd?

    That's not odd to me at all. Companies have professed opnions about god knows what for ages. What is worrying to me is they seem to think the company has a personal relationship with god/jesus/the-holy-ghost-too? and presumably an immortal soul. If true, this might just turn me to a life of virtue; I am not spending eternity with SCO!

    --
    IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
  25. Re:argument from fallacy by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

    ...THAT'S precisely the point of insurance (which I'd like to believe the armed forces provide)...

    Unless it's changed in the 13 years I've been out, then the answer is: No, the miitary does not provide life insurance. It may be different now or if you are married.

    When I was in the service, you had the opportunity to buy into a life insurance policy called Servicemembers General Life Insurance (SGLI). I can't remember if it was administered by the government or contracted out to a private insurance company, but you could get life insurance for a pretty cheap premium. After getting honorably discharged, I converted it to a Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policy, with still pretty cheap premiums ($150,000 coverage for $200/year) and is administered by a private company (Prudential).

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  26. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, the OP's point was aside from the PR damage why should being a war widow get you out of a contract for free? The ability to break contracts due to "exceptional circumstances" should be enshrined in law*, and not just happen due to the court of public opinion. Because we all know if Verizon couldn't provide the service for some reason or decided the customer wasn't worth the fee they would drop them like a rock and the customer would have no legal recourse.

    * Also it should be illegal to only offer "free phone on a million year contract" deals.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  27. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Exactly; the miscarriage here is that you get slapped with an ETF for being in a place without reception. Covering the depreciated hardware subsidy is one thing, but the idea that you can charge someone extra for the cost of acquiring a new customer is absurd.

  28. Re:And as soon as there's publicity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're being overly sensitive - that 'non-denominationally pious' turn of phrase has been part of the politically correct vocabulary of every public official, PR and HR hack for the last few generations.
    I'm sure it's a copy & paste from other previous public statements - I'd be surprised if it wasn't from some document template they've been using anytime anyone dies and they need to express condolences.

  29. Phones Aren't Free by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

    ETFs are in place because you got a device cheaper than it actually costs (or sometimes even free). You agreed to pay for the device by being a customer of another service for a certain amount of time. Smart phones cost a lot of money to make. She got one for a reduced price (possibly even free) by essentially agreeing to pay it off month by month for a year or two. This is very similar to a loan or car payment. Why should Verizon take the hit?
     
    That being said, they could certainly afford to take the hit in situations like this, but I don't blame them for not doing so.

  30. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

    There shouldn't be an ETF. If you finance your phone through the phone company, that should be a separate line-item on your bill, and you should only have to pay off the balance to get out of the contract.

    Phone companies are dipping into the paypal level of scumminess here: they're playing the "unregulated bank" game so they can charge usury interest (and continue to charge premiums even *after* the balance is 100% paid off!)

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  31. Re:And as soon as there's publicity... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    "..Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."

    Am I being overly sensitive, or is that just a bit odd?

    It's somewhere between mindless PR pandering to the masses who believe, and mindless recitation of a plain dumb meme. There has never been a scientific study which revealed any statistically significant effect of prayer. However, there has been a scientific study which demonstrated a distinct lack of statistically significant effects from prayer. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  32. In a better world? Yes. by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.

    We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.

    1. Re:In a better world? Yes. by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.

      Yes, but why should we expect Verizon to be responsible for providing benefits to veterans if we can't get our own fucking government to do the right thing? You think that Verizon should somehow grow the conscience that the Senate doesn't have?

    2. Re:In a better world? Yes. by Nikkos · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fact that you ask these questions means you're totally clueless. Check and see what the total support and training cost for a US soldier is, add his wage, and then compare to a Blackwater merc. (hint: Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (CBO))

      Then check the SLGI, the life insurance plan for the military. You are told when you enlist to check the box, you're told before you deploy to check the box, you're told repeatedly throughout your military career to "check the fucking box" which means that if you checked the box and you die, you get up to $400,000 for your family as well as all the other benefits for your kids and wife (which are quite a bit) Veterans benefits are fucking amazing already, adding more is just vote-buying by politicians

      As far as Verizon goes, to cancel any account because of the death of the account-holder requires a death certificate. Just like the car loan, the mortgage, etc, etc. What's the big deal?

    3. Re:In a better world? Yes. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives?"

      Widows and widowers are eligible (chicks get killed too):

      http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/casualty/blgratuity.htm

      There is also SGLI, which all but utter idiots retain (it's opt-out).

      http://www.insurance.va.gov/sglisite/sgli/sgli.htm

      Easier to read fact sheet:

      http://www.navymutual.org/ServicemembersGroupLifeInsuranceSGLI.asp

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:In a better world? Yes. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      McCain fought against education benefits because he felt they should not be used as a recruiting tool for a bunch of "1-and-done" low ranking soldiers. His plan was to be used as a tool to keep mid-career NCOs, not as an incentive for them to get out. It was one of the very few intelligent things he came up with during his campaign.

  33. Clarification by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ALL cell phone companies are assholes.

    There's a reason why their customer satisfaction has gotten lower than even the kings of shit customer service - the airlines.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  34. Sigh. by Shaltenn · · Score: 1, Troll

    Cancelling the husband's cell phone: A-Ok. She wanted HER cell phone cancelled. How does the death of your husband entitle you to get no ETF? If you don't want to deal with ETF's, don't get the contract. Stop milking your dead husband for benefits.

    --
    If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
    1. Re:Sigh. by Sanhedran · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the contract she signed allowed no ETFs if she moved into an area with no coverage, which was unilaterally amended by them. That's a significant enough change to have that contract dissolved.

      I also love that you think she's "milking her dead husband" by providing the set of circumstances that is putting her in said position. She's not exploiting it for personal benefit, as "milking" would imply. I feel sorry for whatever stooge with mod points rated your comment up.

  35. Re:argument from fallacy by couchslug · · Score: 1

    You can decline, but no one in their right mind does:

    "i. Public Law 104-106, effective April 1, 1996, increased the amount of basic coverage to $200,000. Members were automatically insured for $200,000 and had to elect in writing to decline or reduce their coverage to less than $200,000. The law also granted to Secretaries of the military service departments the authority to terminate SGLI coverage when premiums are not paid. "

    http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/handbook/handbookch1.htm

    Good benefit overview page (applies to all services):

    http://www.navymutual.org/ActiveDutySurvivorBenefits.asp

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  36. Re:She doesn't have to pay... because she's magic! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sometimes, due to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act:

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/sscra/l/blsscra4.htm

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  37. Re:argument from fallacy by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

    The protections provided by the USA for corporations to operate [like selfish scumbag children] -- that protection is guaranteed by the service of our military. These arrogant corporations could learn to be more grateful.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  38. I feel the need to be a dick about this one by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, should everyone whose spouse dies be let out of such contract, or only the spouses of Marines?

    Maybe only those who died serving the public - firefighters, police, military, etc? What about private "military contractors"? They kinda do the same thing (you know, defend Freedom, Justice, and the American Way), just for more money.

    Maybe only those who were married to someone who's nice?

    I'm fine with it either way, really, I just need to know what the rules are.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by sjames · · Score: 1

      In a decent world, we would have a bit of compassion for anyone who loses a spouse.

    2. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by Dilbert4567 · · Score: 1

      Do we know for sure whose name was on the cell phone contract, his, hers, or both? If it was only in his name, when did she ever agree to a termination fee or any other part of the contract? If it was only in his name, the laws also vary by state on what she is obligated to. I am also widowed, and my late wife had a cell phone with Sprint. It was only in her name and I had never signed a single piece of paper, and she had a government-employee calling plan that I would not be eligible for anyway. Despite all that, Sprint also wanted an early termination fee from me to turn off her phone. They also denied I sent them a copy of the death certificate (I sent it registered mail), and would not acknowledge they received any of the 2,000 faxed copies I later sent them. Do you feel I should have paid them the early termination fee, or was I a dick for also getting the local press involved to resolve it?

    3. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by glwtta · · Score: 1

      As a former T-Mobile employee I can tell you that if ANY person under contract dies, the account is cancelled with no termination fee. But thats T-Mobile, they at least try to pretend to have a soul.

      The article is vague about this, and the Slashdot summary goes out of the way to insinuate a more sensationalist interpretation, but it's apparently her contract, not the husband's (since the issue only came up once she decided to move).

      I'm all for being compassionate, but lots of people die, and businesses still need to function. If someone's spouse dies and they can no longer afford the mortgage on their house, does that mean they should just get the house for free?

      Oh, but cell phone companies are evil, so it's different, right?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Just because you feel sorry for someone, it doesn't mean that they get to skip out on paying their bills.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by sjames · · Score: 1

      Evidently enough people disagreed that Verizon decided they'd best play nice and let her out of it.

    6. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      No, Verizon only did it because he was a Marine and we worship the military in this fucked up society.

      But just to test you, how about a different situation - a person has bills that run around 50-60% of their monthly income and then ends up unemployed and unable to get unemployment insurance - should they be allowed to skip out on their bills as opposed to using the money they had in savings and credit cards to pay the bills until they get a job again?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    7. Re:I feel the need to be a dick about this one by sjames · · Score: 1

      They should at the least get a bit of slack. They should especially get some slack when whatever the bill is for is no longer useful to them and part of the reason is because the service doesn't quite live up to the hype.

      Even moreso if the bill only exists because of a policy change that took place after the contract was signed.

  39. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by aaandre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is correct. The thing is, this behavior is encoded in a corporation's DNA. Corporations only understand money. They are organisms designed to extract money from their environment and give it to their owners. That's it.

    Any expectation for a corporation to have a "moral code" comparable to human morals is unrealistic and naive.

    Yes, by law, corporations are "persons."

    Invincible, inhuman "persons," with no morals, no feelings, no compassion, programmed to extract money at any cost.

    Sometimes I wonder if corporations can be viewed as parasitic life using humans to create suffering and transform it into an abstraction (the idea of value represented by the agreement of money).

    The tendency to convert all natural resources, human lives and creativity into abstract numbers stored in computers leads humanity towards a future where we will have only money left on a toxic dead planet.

  40. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by Rallion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?

    I feel sorry about her loss, and I believe that this isn't about the money. Also, I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules. But the (tragic) death is only tangentially related here.

    The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.

  41. military clauses in contracts by purpleraison · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things.

    It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon.

    If nothing else, it highlights how we little people get treated by corporations in America every day.

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
    1. Re:military clauses in contracts by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think the military clause applies definitely to the member of military. For the spouse/family of the military it is less clear. In this case, the contract was in the widow's name not the the soldier nor joint ownership. IANAL so legally Verizon might have been in the clear. That being said, there were idiots as they have full discretion to waive the fee. Between losing a small fee or suffering a major PR gaffe, I'd rather lose the fee. The amount of work/effort to correct this gaffe was probably more than the fee.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:military clauses in contracts by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things. It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon

      with extreme prejudice. Can we get them to correct Verizon anyway?

    3. Re:military clauses in contracts by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wouldn't apply in this case, but the military has the legal authority to order G.I.s not to patronize any "Off Limits" business, Reasons for that order are at military (usually Base Commander) discretion.

      Example:

      http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_bffa90b2-2d53-11df-b2ce-001cc4c03286.html

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  42. The headline should read... by Bertwisted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone With Half-A-Brain works in Verizon's PR Department.

  43. Re:And as soon as there's publicity... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    A company is a sheet of paper, often in Delaware. Apparently, this piece of paper not only has a soul, but believes in God and prays to it. The question of whether it's silly to pray is irrelevant to whether it's silly to declare that a piece of paper, with a soul and a belief in a personal God, has accepted Jesus Christ as its personal lord and savior and prays to him for for some widow that piece of paper managed to screw over previously. Apparently this piece of paper also feel remorse.

  44. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

    I love slashdot. What in one story is called "oil wars" in the other is called "defending our freedoms", and it doesn't raise one eyebrow.

  45. Monopolists' contracts of adhesion by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.

    Do you also believe in antitrust law and public utility regulation? Some goods and services considered essential for the expected standard of living in the United States are available only from monopolies[1] and cartels that impose questionably-conscionable contracts of adhesion on their customers. So I don't know how one would live in the United States without signing such a contract, except perhaps by joining the Amish.

  46. Thoughts by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    That's just plain unpatriotic of Verizon! Pretty evil too! I guess companies these days have no conscience and their only creed is money, money, money.

  47. Wrong Verizon, Wrong by genican1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the issue here is the fact that she's having to pay the fee even though she's now living in an area with no service. This has nothing to do with the fact that she is a widow, this is just asshattery on VZW's part. I know certain other carriers allow you to cancel under similar circumstances without paying the ETF (AT&T).

    1. Re:Wrong Verizon, Wrong by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Verizon does, too. They reneged on all of their signed contracts in April when they announced that they would no longer honor that clause.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  48. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by jimmydevice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.

  49. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, verizon should be more reasonable in general, especially when the contract is being cancelled because they provide no coverage where it's needed.

    The fact that they would be such bastards even to the widow of a veteran just demonstrates the extent of their inhumanity.

  50. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by sjames · · Score: 1

    We used to call anything or anyone like that a monster. Not the creature feature sort of monster, more like the blight on humanity destroy it before it destroys us sort of monster.

    Psychopaths shouldn't be allowed to have power over people's lives.

  51. Once the phone is paid off, why no rate cut? by tepples · · Score: 1

    She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her.

    Then why doesn't the phone company cut the rate by a corresponding certain amount per month after the last month of the contract, once the customer has fully paid off the handset? T-Mobile does; other U.S. carriers don't.

    1. Re:Once the phone is paid off, why no rate cut? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. There are all sorts of reasons they shouldn't charge the termination fee. The fact that they can't provide the service in the area she lives is one of them. It's 2010, so coverage is a reasonable expectation. The fact that it will not cost them anything like that much money is another.

      That she lost her husband is very sad, but really beside the point.

  52. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

    Why is this news? Verizon made good. Not that I'm a fan, but why are we harassing them when they fixed the problem and apologized?

    Granted, it should never have had to become a public issue, of course.

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  53. RTFA, WIDOW WANTS OUT, NOT DEAD HUSBAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw this on consumerist and fark, Yes Verizon is a soulless corperation, that's a fact.

    However you don't get out of your contract with Verizon for moving out of the coverage area. The fact that her husband is dead has nothing to do with it. The phone's not in her husband's name. That's the sympathy ploy.

    The only reason Verizon caved now is because oh-noes,media-attention.

    Front line customer service representatives do not have the authority to reverse or waive ETF charges. If they did, they would do it for every single stupid sob story. Employees who reverse the ETF get shown the door.

    Because the media was involved, it was obviously escalated to the office of the president, and they probably felt that the PR damage being caused by consumerist, fark and every other brainless news site is somehow the sentiment of the public.

    Far from it. If you read most of the comments on consumerist and fark you'll see that few are sympathetic about wanting out of the ETF.

    Believe it or not, people will fake dying to get out of an ETF.

  54. My Thoughts by inkrypted · · Score: 1

    Given all the bad press that Verizon has had lately I ask myself are they any more evil than other big corporations? Personally having worked for HP and AT&T I don't think so it just that this one incident became public which is why I am independent these days because I simply cant do what these corporations demand without loosing my humanity.

    --
    Chris Sheppard
  55. No where near the experience I had with T-Mobile by Tisha_AH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had my sister on my T-Mobile account and she had purchased a new Android phone through the T-Mobile store. She died last year and it took me a few months to get around to calling T-Mobile to terminate the contract on her phone.

    The T-Mobile customer service representative was very understanding and sympathetic and waived any disconnect penalties or outstanding balance on the phone purchase. She had even offered to see if she could backdate the service termination a few months. I told her that was not necessary as it was my own reticence to close the account (you know, the finality of death and wrapping up the details of someone's life).

    Over the years little experiences like that with T-Mobile have made me a very loyal customer. It seems that someone still remembers how to treat their customers.

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  56. The fee should stand by ionymous · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I honestly have no problem with Verizon charging the termination fee in this situation. She canceled and that's all that matters. Whenever a spouse dies there's extra expenses, and this is just one of them. Life sucks. Death sucks even more.

    1. Re:The fee should stand by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The important part isn't the death. The important part is that the contract she signed didn't have an ETF if she moved to an area without coverage. In April, Verizon announced they were reneging on their contracts and would no longer honor that clause. Their reason: "We have perfect coverage so not honoring our contract should not make any difference". This woman is moving to an area without coverage, which her signed contract says is allowed with no ETF. Verizon is refusing to honor the contract and sending collections agencies out for blood.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  57. When Dad died, I had a similar fight with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Verizon wanted to charge us for cancelling Dad's account when he died. Verizon told me I needed to "request" the fee be waived. Ok, fine...I ended up emailing Verizon and CC'ing the NY Times, Bloomberg and a dozen other news firms along with a dozen High profile folks in Congress who take interest in hese kinds of things to make my point. It wasn't long before I received an empathetic call from Verizon. Oh snap, is that humble pie on Verizon's face...are those crown feathers flying out of verizon's mouth. Shame on Verizon.

  58. Come on, this is America! by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Giving your life for your country doesn't excuse your financial contractual responsibilities.

    Unless you're a corporation, then you can cancel your end at any time with no penalty.

    God, I love this country! :sarcasm,off //anger, that's still simmering.

    1. Re:Come on, this is America! by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      Since when would a corporation ever want to risk their life, let alone give their life for their country?

      Your second statement is void.

      Besides in America, Corporations can act with impunity any time.

  59. T-mobile by istartedi · · Score: 1

    T-mobile told me that if I moved out of service, there was no termination fee. I wouldn't even have to die. I didn't put that to the test though.

    This is pretty shabby. Anecdotally, I know that at least one airline will refund your ticket with a death cert. It's not easy or fast; but they'll do it.

    This is just shabby. Nevermind the morality of it, the bean counters at Verizon should realize that the negative PR from not cancelling the fee is more costly than the lost fees.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:T-mobile by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Who cares what T-Mobile said? Verizon told this woman that there were no termination fees if she moved out of service. They lied, and T-Mobile lied, too. See, the contract might SAY there is no fee. But the contract also says that all terms, fees, and agreements are subject to change without notice. So, she signed a contract that says no fee, and when she canceled, they said "We have altered the deal, pray we do not alter it further".

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  60. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by quenda · · Score: 1

    No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom,

    Spare us the nationalism. The US was never under threat. Or you mean your freedom to drive oil-guzzling SUVs?
    I don't think the military can claim higher moral ground than Verizon.

    (reread) Oh ... you were being ironic. sorry :)

    However if you fight for the rights of people over corporations, you may get a law that early termination fees may only reflect actual costs to the company.
    So if your contract includes a $500 subsidy on an smartphone, and you cancel halfway through, you should have to pay back half of that subsidy.
    Fixed break fees have no justification.

  61. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by trogdor8667 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know when my grandmother died, we had just helped her renew her AT&T contract a month before. I called AT&T from her phone and requested to cancel the service and asked how much the ETF would be. The girl on the phone acted surprised I'd even asked. She essentially told me that they would never charge an ETF for a line for someone that had passed away, mostly because they didn't want to cause any more hardship on the family. I'm sure thats crap and its just that they can't really hold a deceased person to a contract, but I was surprised how easy they made it to close the account. Its a shame Verizon's level 1 support couldn't have done the same thing.

  62. Re:So? by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Then join the fight, and try to bag one yourself. You can do better than trolling, you can join the contest and "enlist" on the side of your choice.

    IMO there might be fewer wars if the cheerleaders went too. :)

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  63. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by db32 · · Score: 1

    You are totally right...I mean except for that part where your entire statement is complete and utter bullshit typed on a computer connected to a network where everything is powered by electricity all thanks to various corporations. Oh and your clean water, your food, and all of that other stuff that you enjoy today in any first world nation. All of these things have basically been delivered by those "parasitic life" corporations.

    There are plenty of reasons to be pissed about various corporate behaviors, and plenty of ways to try and control some of the more disturbing abuses of power we have seen. However this "corporations are all evil" neohippie bullshit is the product of mental masturbation by people with too few braincells. But hey, I would much rather live as a permanent peasant under the boots of some totalitarian government given all the powers required to crush those evil corporations...

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  64. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by imnotanumber · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of reasons to be pissed about various corporate behaviors, and plenty of ways to try and control some of the more disturbing abuses of power we have seen. However this "corporations are all evil" neohippie bullshit is the product of mental masturbation by people with too few braincells. But hey, I would much rather live as a permanent peasant under the boots of some totalitarian government given all the powers required to crush those evil corporations...

    You are getting it backwards. Most of the power of these evil corporations is backed up by the government. We only need the government to give less protection to them.

  65. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by canajin56 · · Score: 1

    She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.

    And Verizon is the heartless one.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  66. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by Cwix · · Score: 1

    Ding-Ding-Ding... I believe you've hit the jackpot.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  67. why moving ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    There are various reasons why she could be moving; it wouldn't be ridicule to think she moved because of her dead husband.

    Choices can be altered because of facts happening around you. A death would sure be a valuable option to move places.

    The house could be too big for a widow; memories hanging in the old place; the husband could have chosen the place work-related ......

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  68. suicide magazine by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Yes, lots of people die every day for lots of reasons, some people jerk off with a belt around their neck and go too far. Other people try to have sex with a barnyard animal and get kicked in the head. Yet others get into a car wreck because they are sexting an underage boy and die in a fire.

    I am interested in subscribing to your "suicide magazine"...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:suicide magazine by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      > I am interested in subscribing to your "suicide magazine."

      He does have a rather ... VIVID imagination, doesn't he?

      Either that, or he lives in a very interesting family, where no one has died in their sleep since 1856 or thereabouts ...

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  69. So ? by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She lost her husband, who was a marine, and probably served his country in some respect during one of their pointless overseas "conquests" (if you can call soldiers dying and spending trillions of dollars for 10 years without achieving fuck all a "conquest"). Yes, very sad.

    But just because her husband died does not magically make her debts and responsibilities go away.

    How can you blame the service provider for sending a demand letter at a possibly "stressful" time for her ? What should they do during the billing cycle ? Hold every damn bill until they've verified no immediate relative has recently died ?

  70. Re:So? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    I do not have a side. Wars are stupid and unnecessary, specially in the 21th century.

    I am usually except both sides of any war, except in this case we don't actually have a war, because we don't have more than one side.

    Afghanistan had a Marxist regimen before the United States decided to fund a small resistance, so the Russians backed up the democratic and legitimate government, and we had a war. For 10 fucking years. After the Soviets were no more, the CIA continued to train and provide funding and armament to the resistance. In 2001, you got an excuse to go in there (Thanks to another CIA sock puppet), and you've been there ever since.

    There are small groups of crazy bastards everywhere, and potential conflicts are all around, but those potential conflicts turn into wars when the CIA comes in and trains and finances those groups. Then the army has someone to fight against.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  71. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by friedmud · · Score: 1

    Spare us the nationalism. The US was never under threat. Or you mean your freedom to drive oil-guzzling SUVs?
    I don't think the military can claim higher moral ground than Verizon.

    (reread) Oh ... you were being ironic. sorry :)

    Never under threat... oh other than planes running into buildings, killing thousands.... along with however many plots have been foiled without us even knowing about it.

    That's a pretty big oversight, dude.

  72. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by Stu_28 · · Score: 2, Informative

    She probably lived in base housing. When he died she was required to move.

    No, you get 365 days after the service member's death until you have to vacate base housing (or lose your housing allowance if you live off base). It's not like they push you out the door after the funeral...

  73. Re:And as soon as there's publicity... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I'd be surprised if it wasn't from some document template they've been using anytime anyone dies and they need to express condolences.

    That much I was sure of, I'd just never really noticed it before... Just two points: First, the fact that it's common doesn't preclude it being odd. And second, I think it says something that they copy and paste that. Think about it -- in my spare time, I tend to type Slashdot posts from scratch which, I'd like to think, show more sensitivity than they have here, and they can't find someone to take two minutes and write something authentic, instead of copying and pasting PR bullshit?

    I do still find it odd, though, partly because we know it's not true, in many ways. First, we know that the person who copied and pasted it isn't going to pray. Second, we know that most of the company wouldn't have even known this had happened without it being a PR scandal, so we know that if they pray at all, the cause of that prayer is (indirectly) bad PR. And finally, this would annoy the hell out of me if I worked there -- it means either they're doing prayers in an official capacity, or they're assuming to speak for the employees...

    Yeah, I'm overanalyzing. Yeah, I really should pick my battles... I just thought it was... odd.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  74. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?

    I realize that's a rhetorical question, but let's see...

    "The remote detonated IED, one of those went off, and he took full force," explained Michaela surrounded by pictures of her husband and flowers, still fresh, from his recent funeral. "He died on the chopper on the way to the field hospital."

    I'm going to say, longer than that.

    I suppose it's technically possible that this is being spun, since she's not specifically talking about the termination fee here, and it doesn't say how long ago he died. Then again...

    The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.

    She is moving because her husband died. Sure, she could choose to stay, but it's not unreasonable.

    But all of this is beside the point. I'm not saying that Verizon should have to do anything...

    I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules.

    I realize it would be an exception. I might even concede that this particular case isn't necessarily clear. (For example: Whose fault is it that she went with a plan and a provider that charges $350 early-termination fees?)

    But I was replying to an AC who said this:

    So he died. Get over it.

    That is not an OK thing to say. Not now, not in ten years. If it's tangential, it's tangential, but you do not tell a grieving widow to "get over it."

    Or, to be more precise: It is allowed (freedom of speech), but incredibly insensitive.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  75. Reiterating an IMPORTANT question about this issue by xmundt · · Score: 1

    Greetings and salutations...
              An earlier poster raised a very important point in this debate...did the woman have a separate contract? That has yet to be answered. It is quite possible that they had a family plan, with a couple of phones and a shared pool of minutes. If so...it is quite possible that it WAS her husband that was the primary account holder. If that was the case, then, that contract SHOULD have become null and void when the husband died...and there likely SHOULD be no termination fee. The original article linked does not address this question at all.
              If she had a separate contract, and, she was moving to a place that Verizon did not provide service, I suspect that a testy note from a lawyer to them, stating that their
    client would be more than happy to continue paying the subscription, but, that Verizon would be required to provide service in her area, would be sufficient to eliminate the termination fee. The idea that ANY company should be allowed to continue to bill for services when their subscriber is in an area that they do not cover is more of an example of unbridled corporate greed than any idea of rational business practices.
                And, since I wander just a little bit at times....This business of the Cell phone companies "giving" their subscriber an overpriced phone that has little to recommend it except that it is the latest and greatest "cool technology" in return for locking them into a 2 year contract seems a bit sketchy to me. Either the phone is a LOT cheaper than its claimed cost, or, the cost of cell service is a LOT lower than the providers claim. Either way, it seems like they are pulling in a right fair amount of money by hoodwinking the consumer.
              of course, I also realize that, as a publicly traded company, their job is NOT to provide the best service for the lowest cost, but, rather to suck as much cash out of the pockets of their subscribers as possible, and, funnel as much of that cash into the pockets of their share-holders.
                Pleasant dreams
                Dave Mundt

    --
    YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
  76. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by houghi · · Score: 1

    What if he was still alive? What if he wasn't military and died because of being drunk and driving against a tree? What if she did not move and just was unhappy about the service?

    The only thing you can complain about is the early termination fee. The rest is irrelevant. That is as long as the contract was not on his name.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  77. Who cares? by hackel · · Score: 1

    First off, this appears to be a pathetic grab by a third-rate TV station to make a story out of nothing, targeting all the pro-military nut-jobs. They know they will jump on anything with the word "military" in it.

    Secondly...a contract's a contract. If the contract provided for a way for her to get out of it (e.g. if she moved into an area where they provided no service), then they were wrong, and they corrected the error. If not, then SHE was wrong and should have had to pay, and Verizon was *extremely* nice to her, much more so than it needed to be. People need to stop complaining about service contracts that they voluntarily sign into!

    This has nothing to do with her husband being in the military or dying. I get so sick of these military people whining and complaining as if they didn't know what they were getting themselves into... Come on! It's the military! If you sign up (or marry someone who signs up) to murder people, there is a very high chance of them being killed. Deal with it, don't complain and expect all this special treatment! The nerve of some of these people is truly unbelievable...

  78. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your imagery here is certainly interesting and somewhat entertaining, but IMHO, the idea that a 'corporation' is necessarily and naturally devoid of humanity and moral code is absolutely bullshit.

    A society is composed of a collection of individuals who may or may not be working towards a common goal (typically they are, such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"). This collection of individuals always has some composite set of morals, even if they are few and mild. The stronger the moral compass of individuals, the stronger the morals of the whole is likely to be.

    A corporation should be no different, and to claim otherwise is simply a cowardly way of shirking personal responsibility on the part of CEOs all the way down to janitors. The apparent greed of a corporation is not intrinsic to the corporation as an idea, but only exists because of the greed exhibited by the individuals it is comprised of.

    --
    ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
  79. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    In the UK, early termination costs you the total sum of your contract period minus VAT, at least on Orange.

    There's no ETF, because the cost of the contract easily covers the price of the handset, and then some. Often, you pay up-front for a top of the range handset anyway.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  80. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    My kingdom for a mod point.

    Everyone who labels this as insensitive is making a massive amounts of assumptions on the circumstances of her early termination. Reading the summary and article I know the following:

    a) She had a contract with Verizon.
    b) Some random event in her life changed and she decided to move back to her home town
    c) She went crying to daddy who went crying to the media to get our of the early termination fee.

    No more, no less. She is moving out of her own free will. She could very well move into a big city, but no she wanted to move into the country. Good for her, she should pay her early termination fee. Her husband may be a hero, and she may be grieving the loss, but that doesn't automatically make her contract null and void.

    This reminds me of brides trying to get out of paying the photographer because there's no pictures of them smiling. Well if you weren't smiling then how is that their fault. The contract owner here did not die. The contract owner was not forced to move.

  81. Well, here is the future CEO of verizon by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    What this guy doesn't get and will never get because he was born without a heart is that there are some things you just don't do.

    Some hitns for the parent poster and others like him:

    Small kid stumbles and spills water on your best pair of pants: You don't sue him in court for his pocket money after giving him a beating that leaves him in a wheel chair.

    Puppy: You don't kick it.

    Orphans: You don't burn down their orphonage.

    War-widows: You don't do ANYTHING to them, ever. Especially not when your country is involved in two wars.

    Any real human being would understand this. If you do not get why Verizon is completely in the wrong with this then sorry, you are not a human being.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  82. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by socheres · · Score: 1

    he did not die defending anyones freedom.
    i really see many of you swallowed the pill and speak the language of the television.
    he died while being part of an INVADING/ATTACKING FORCE, outside your borders, while taking part in operations that involve many many things but NOT protecting YOUR freedom.

    EVEN in the eventuality that you may consider that america invading countries to steal they shit is beneficial to the US economy or whatever,that STILL does not do anything to protect your freedom.

  83. Not all big companies are this stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I worked for Apple a while back in a call center. Customer service and stuff, answering questions about where people's iPod orders were, sorting out returns. Policy at the time was that any iPod with a personalised engraving on the back was non-returnable, NO EXCEPTIONS.

    So I get a call from a man who wanted to return an iPod he had bought and personalised for his son as a birthday present. So I explained the policy, and asked why he wanted to return it as per S.O.P., and as it turns out - his son was dead. He had died the week before his birthday in a car accident.

    I asked no more questions, cleared the return right then and there, and told him a courier would be by in the morning with a box to collect it. And his card would be refunded as soon as it reached the depot. My team leader didn't question my actions even for a second.

    Bottom line here, yeah, he could have been lying. But one wrongly returned iPod vs the publicity fallout if I said no? Being an insensitive policy-following robot vs having some compassion? The whole point of having live humans on the front line is for customer relations, just for situations like this, and when I was at Apple they at least had a fucking clue about how to do it right - we had a lot of training and we were expected to make judgement calls on balancing the interests of the customer and the company.

    This shit from Verizon? Bad. Customer. Service. And it's coming back to bite them in the ass - they're the phone company that slapped a grieving soldier's widow with a $350 fee because she wanted to move back home to be with her family. The damage control alone is going to cost a lot more than $350, and they could have avoided it all if their front line CSRs had the power and the judgement to waive the ETF if the situation merits it. Either someone made a bad call, or they just can't do it at all - and do you really want to deal with a company that doesn't trust its customer point-of-contact employees with the most basic ability to solve customer problems?

  84. Re:No where near the experience I had with T-Mobil by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since we're sharing anecdotes, here's my T-Mobile experience.

    Had a 2 year contract but was planning to move out of the country. I talked with a rep at one of their stores and was told if they don't offer service in the new country I can cancel service without an early termination fee, also I need proof of address in the new country. No problem, the rep also offers to suspend service for up to 6 months while I make my initial move, get proof of address and come back for final paperwork. Sweet, so no charge while in the (obviously no service) country for 6 months, I fly back with proof of new address and I should be golden yes?

    Nope, when I get back I find out they reactivated my account soon after I left, I'm charged with 6 months of service and a $250 early termination charge. I politely explain to the new rep (different store) how I have all the paperwork with me today because of the conversation with the old rep who set everything up and explained exactly what I needed. It's obvious no calls were made over that time period and previously I'd never had a late payment. Why would I leave for 6 months and NOT suspend my account? The rep agreed it made sense, but "Can't do anything", finally the supervisor agreed to waive the early termination fee and give me some kind of "discount" but I still owe several hundred dollars.

    I was told if I went back to the original store... found the same rep, got them to admit fault, then THEY could waive the other fees. Yeah right, that was in another state and I couldn't remember exactly which rep anyways.

    So I head back to my new home, T-Mobile account closed with an outstanding balance. I refuse to pay a cent since they're bastards and now a credit collection agency is hounding my parents. Such fun.

    Knowing my dad, he'll probably pay the whole thing just to make them stop calling. I hate T-Mobile.

    There's my anecdote. They're really worthless aren't they?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  85. The reminder goes to your heirs. by wiredog · · Score: 1

    So does the remainder... ;)

  86. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    If only the military was sensitive enough to these things, and also wanted to make sure that private corporations didn't have to try to figure out when something like this happened, and chipped in enough extra money to cover these unexpected costs when someone died in combat (above and beyond the life insurance they would otherwise receive if they passed away peacefully on base).

    Oh, wait, they do, and its $100,000 (tax-free IIRC). Its designed to cover these unpleasant situations. This is a time when we're already doing the right thing, but she wants Verizon to chip in and pay her phone subsidy for her as well.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  87. Re:So ? -- You've gottta be kidding me. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Frankly, EVERY corporation should provide a "I'm in the military" checkbox which, once verified the checkbox is valid (some proof is required), it would be in the best interests (PR-wise) of that company to provide reduced cost services, and complete waiving of fees if necessary.

    I'm tired of companies talking about how they "support" the country and/or the troops, while they avoid paying taxes, they actively lobby to steal more from every American, they skirt the law to avoid any responsibility for any action they do or do not take, and all they do is make commercials about how patriotic they are.

    Think about all the 9/11 victims. Every damn family of some high-paid white-collar worker who died that day got tons of money and all kinds of waivers on paying anything for months! Those guys were insured up the wazoo, and even when they weren't the families sued for "what they would have earned in the lifetime", which meant millions.

    Meanwhile someone truly serving the nation, some military grunt, when he dies, all the family ever gets is grief and hassle from every corner of our country. Some gratitude. I have to wonder what mental illness makes anyone *want* to serve our country when our country won't do jack shit for them when the tables have turned. It makes me want to vomit.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  88. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    While I agree with your sentiment, it could be that they lived in on-base housing. If that were the case, she would have been forced to vacate and she could argue her relocation was related to that.

  89. Re:Too big to fail? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    How about a different situation?

    You're the CEO of a multi-billion dollar international corporation that insures credit default swaps. You're goofing off as usual, playing golf on a weekday when your phone rings. It's your personal assistant, telling you that the stock market has crashed because CDS's are worthless. You're leverged to 175% of market cap, so you don't even have enough cash to make payroll next week.

    Should you be allowed to continue getting your $20 million dollar a year salary while you're borrowing money from the government, and in the meantime, your inaction, stupidity, and greed has cost the entire economy trillions of dollars and basically bankrupted the entire nation?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  90. I'm outraged? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    How do you know I'm outraged?

    I'm actually fairly indifferent towards Verizon -- more outraged that they charge $350 to anyone for termination, but that seems to be the norm in that industry.

    What I was specifically responding to was the comment of "So he died. Get over it." That is not an OK thing to say to a grieving widow.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  91. Re:Oh no, my green paper! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    There are millions of other people out there who have had close relatives or spouses die recently too. Should we bend to their demands?

    I didn't say that. All I said is that it was pretty damned insensitive.

    She should take some personal responsibility and present a normal facade to the rest of the world. That's what society is all about.

    Maybe to you -- and I wish you posted this non-anonymously, so I would know who I should never trust.

    But some of us would like to be authentic, and actually give a damn.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  92. Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    "...I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom"

    Which freedom was that then. The freedom to drive an SUV? The freedom to invade other countries on bullshit pretences? The freedom to be a douchebag?

    This is the rest of the world, fuck you America

    This may help.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  93. Re:So ? -- You've gottta be kidding me. by daveime · · Score: 1

    Yes, but WHY ?

    Fine, I'm not debating the fact that the military provide a vital service defending the country ... But then doctors, firemen, paramedics also do a valuable job ... what about teachers, scientists, etc. ?

    Should we give every widow or widower of a "professional" a pension for life and a waiver on all debts and responsibilities ? And more to the point, who the fuck is going to pay for it ?

    Every time Verizon "write off" a termination fee like this, it simply means a bunch of other cunts get to pay for it. They might avoid bad PR, but for sure the rest of us will still pick up the tab.

  94. Re:No where near the experience I had with T-Mobil by CompMD · · Score: 1

    This is good to hear.

    I had a terrible experience with Sprint after my grandmother died. She had one of my old phones, not under subsidy. I called to cancel her account, and Sprint demanded I pay her ETF. After much arguing back and forth, the CSR demanded I provide them with a death certificate. To which I asked "Who am I going to show it to, you're in a call center somewhere!" I asked to speak to her manager, and I was transferred. When I told the manager that the CSR demanded a death certificate, there was a pause and he softly said, "She said *what*?" I repeated exactly what the CSR said. The manager then apologized profusely and said that the CSR's actions were inexcusable and she should have immediately referred the call to him to have the ETF waived.

  95. droid vs droid by epine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision.

    You can bet your life it was an executive decision to staff the call center with low-paid droids incapable of acting on moral discretion. This is the business model they choose to create, where 99% of their interaction with the public is through low-paid droids incapable of moral discretion.

    On this model, getting publicly burned in effigy once every six months is a normal cost of business. The phone companies have taken it upon themselves to function as the bulwark of enculturated infantilism (few cost-up-front purchase options). They deserve what they get.

    On the other side of the fence, America's enlisted men have roughly the same level of moral discretion when it comes to participating in the wrong war as Verizon's call center droids have in accepting a justifiable termination request.

  96. Re:No where near the experience I had with T-Mobil by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    Heck,
    I use T-Mobile pre-paid and the one time I had a problem (lost phone) and had to go into a branded store to resolve it they were awesome. It took a while to resolve (technical issues relating to moving a pre-paid phone number to a new SIM) but customer service side was beyond expectations.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  97. Re:Too big to fail? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how I'm against stealing money of any sort, I'm against bailouts for companies as well. But since you mentioned in your subject line "too big to fail", I feel compelled to point out that "too big to fail" is just as ludicrous an idea as your notion of "too sad to pay their bills".

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson