Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Wireless To Issue $90 Million In Refunds

tekgoblin writes "Verizon Wireless had somehow been charging customers extra money on their bills for data that they actually hadn't been using. Approximately 15 million customers were affected by the billing error. According to BGR the FCC had been pressuring Verizon to respond to the hundreds of complaints that had been piling up. So Verizon's answer was to refund all of the overcharged money as soon as possible."

43 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. And? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least their answer was to issue refunds.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:And? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $90 million was no "accident." This is all standard operating procedure. In some circles, this is huge theft. If done to the government, it would result in criminal charges. Being quick to refund was nothing more than cover their asse[t]s. The telecoms are all resisting FCC inquiries and we know why... we KNEW why -- because they are all massively ripping off the public.

    2. Re:And? by gorzek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also hardly limited to Verizon. I've been with Sprint for several years and had a few occasions where they put strange charges on my bill. Of course, I called and complained and they took them off, saying they were "billing errors." I don't know what I'd prefer, that they're so shady they're purposely tacking bullshit charges onto people's bills, or they are so incompetent they don't know how to keep such mistakes from happening.

      I can only guess how many people get those charges who never bat an eye and just pay them.

    3. Re:And? by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '$90 million was no "accident."'

      Maybe it wasn't, but I find this "matter-of-fact" statement amusing. What, the fact that it's a large number makes the idea of an error impossible? A systematic error in their billing system - the kind of thing I have no problem believing would slip past a corporate QA department - could easily rack up $90M across the book of business before being noticed.

      IT makes it possible to do everything - including screw up - a lot faster than you would imagine.

      'This is all standard operating procedure'

      Citation needed. If you've ever actually worked in a corporation, then you know that the management will do all manner of unethical thing, but only to the extent they can delude themselves into believing it's really ok. I've yet to meet an executive so far gone that he believes you can overcharge your customers and then repay the principal when you get caught. They like to be a lot more subtle than that.

      'The telecoms are all resisting FCC inquiries'

      All companies resist all manner of oversight. Oversight costs money even when you're following the rules. This doesn't mean that there should be no oversight, but it does mean that a company cannot be presumed guilty for trying to avoid oversight.

    4. Re:And? by gorzek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The same thing happens with banks, for that matter, or any instance where you're charged for something. What are the odds you'll be accidentally credited instead of, say, debited twice for the same thing? And if multiple erroneous debits wind up overdrawing your account, how good are the odds that the offending party will reimburse the overdraft charges?

      These errors always seem to be at the expense of the consumer and it's a struggle just to get back to zero, much less be compensated for your time and trouble.

    5. Re:And? by bberens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a company down the street that does billing for (I think) Sprint. Some of their developers have interviewed here. Apparently it's a pretty rough shop to work in. I dunno if it's bad legacy code or not but they have constant problems and they're always getting after hours calls. It's a big deal if a billing cycle has problems. Part of the problem is that the bills are so unnecessarily complicated. And lots of stuff *does* get flagged before it goes out. That's what happens when the company creates so many different kinds of fees and credits it could make your head spin. Anyways, at least from this end (developer) it doesn't appear to be a big corporate conspiracy to overcharge you.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    6. Re:And? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A systematic error in their billing system - the kind of thing I have no problem believing would slip past a corporate QA department - could easily rack up $90M across the book of business before being noticed.

      So why would it take an FCC inquiry (and a large number of consumer complaints, endless websites/news stories about Verizon's bad data-charging habits, "Verizon Math", and even firing employees who offer service blocks to customers)?

      In most cases, okay, I can totally grok the 'never attribute to malice' line. But Verizon? Sorry... they're the type where this sort of thing is designed, not accidental. Also, that $90m is likely only a portion of the money they've taken in over the years.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:And? by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting that your Motel 6 story is about a local franchisee screwing you over, and the national office (the Megacorps!!!) solving the problem for you.

    8. Re:And? by ncy · · Score: 2, Informative

      as a customer of Verizon, i can say that i've received third-party charges multiple times on things i never used or even heard of, in the amount of i believe between $30-$50. good thing looked at the bill in detail. and what's more annoying is that Verizon support said they can't do anything about it in terms of refunding; had to call the third-party company listed on the bill, who only after getting threatened to be reported said "i'll talk to my supervisor" and refunded the full amount, sometimes with extreme rudeness. i imagine they must be getting a lot of these calls. shady business practice if you ask me. the last time this happened, it was some music service, and the Verizon guy said it might be the "kids" using some wireless service, which is stupid because we don't use have Verizon wireless, only landline and cable. at least they offered to put a "block" on third-party charges this time ... we'll see how that goes

    9. Re:And? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The same thing happens with banks, for that matter, or any instance where you're charged for something. What are the odds you'll be accidentally credited instead of, say, debited twice for the same thing? And if multiple erroneous debits wind up overdrawing your account, how good are the odds that the offending party will reimburse the overdraft charges?

      These errors always seem to be at the expense of the consumer and it's a struggle just to get back to zero, much less be compensated for your time and trouble.

      Yeah, you're right about that (and it's statistically improbable at best.)

      Still, I did have one positive experience along those lines once. Gotta be about twenty five years ago, but at the time I was pretty broke and was waiting for some money to come in, so I could open another checking account and get away from a bank that had seriously screwed me over (in fact, that's why I was pretty broke.) Suddenly, a substantial amount of money appeared in my account: obviously a banking error, but I immediately withdrew some of it, used it to open an account at another bank, then immediately withdrew those funds and put them back in my original account. A couple of days later, the original bank fixed its mistake, but that was all the time I needed.

      But you're right, that's pretty goddamn rare.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:And? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So why is it then that the complexity so greatly favors invalid charges rather than creating an equal liklihood of credits or charges?

      In fact, over time since customers are far more likely to report an erroneous charge than a credit, the system should come to vastly favor credits.

      Perhaps the developers only get bug reports for erroneous credits?

  2. "Accidents" and "Refunds" by skyride · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you RTFA, it actually says the overages were caused by "built in applications" such as web features on the phone put there by verizon, and then charged $1.99 for 1MB of data used despite it being merely a few kilobytes downloaded.

    Also, the majority of customers will be receiving Credits instead of an actual refund. So essentially they will never get this money back.

    1. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I did RTFA, Verizon said:

      "We will mail former customers refund checks. In most cases, these credits are in the $2 to $6 range; some will receive larger credits or refunds." which means actual refunds for larger amounts, and for the $2-$6 range (most customers) it will be a credit on their next bill. Looks like they are trying to do the right thing. For once.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by chemicaldave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looks like they are trying to do the right thing. For once.

      Right...after the FCC told them to do something about it. This is totally conjecture, but I doubt Verizon would have been so willing to issue refunds without pressure.

    3. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by skyride · · Score: 4, Informative

      You read it wrong:

      "In most cases, these credits are in the $2 to $6 range; some will receive larger credits or refunds."

      So no, there will be a lot of people owed more than $6 dollars and receiving credits. Regardless, in the vast majority of cases, its still $2 they should never have been charged.

    4. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But but but the FCC is a government agency! They can't possibly do anything right! The free market should have sorted everything out!

    5. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So on the blue corner we have Verizon, a mega-corp. out to make a buck. By definition, everything they do is evil. On the red corner we have the FCC, a government agency and as such incompetent and wrong-doing by default.
      Looks like we have a tie.

      I mean people, we have a company that charged incorrectly (I'll even admit, based on what is written on this thread - indecently). People complained, the FCC checked on this and Verizon responded by refunding people. I'd say that for once the system worked - someone X did bad, someone else (Y) corrected him and then X did the right thing and gave the money back. I say cheers!

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    6. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by Cwix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dont worry its just pretend time now... Just pretend that either the FCC wasn't involved, or that it was the FCCs idea to do it in the first place.
      Then accuse the FCC of persecuting small businesses.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    7. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when is the wireless world a free market?

    8. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by ZedNaught · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Verizon never does the right thing. While they are refunding the money for the accidental data usage, they are also imposing a mandatory $9.99 minimum data plan on every wireless customer with a browser capability on their cell phone to prevent this from being a problem in the future. So they give back $90 million and collect $9.99 per line going forward.

    9. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by zeropointburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seemed like everything they did after taking over Alltel was designed to drive people away. They gave us a few months on the original much more generous plans before booting everyone to overpriced Verizon plans. Viaero has been awesome since I switched, with the same or better plans and coverage as Alltel. It was much much cheaper with Viaero to get unlimited access for both lines compared to any other carrier.

        I'm not a shill (and not AC), just a satisfied customer. I'm sure they are probably just as greedy as any other telco, but so far they have treated me very well.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
    10. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is absolutely correct. Verizon has a very small number of phones, called Feature Phones. You can find the models on their website, here. If you purchase a Feature Phone (and that is all I purchase, as I don't want the data capability), then they won't charge you the extra 19.99/month for the data plan. If you purchase any non-Feature Phone, as most of them are, then you will automatically be charged 19.99/month. You cannot get out of it. So if you are not into texting or browsing the web on your phone, and just want to use it for voice mail and calls, as I do, then you MUST get a Feature Phone. Further, unless you ask, the Verizon policy requires their representatives to sell you a non-Feature Phone set. They are forbidden to advise you, "unless asked", about the existence of Feature Phones. This is Verizon veering very close to being evil, certainly completely interested in their customer's money and not at all in their customer's best interests.

    11. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by tsj5j · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm really curious about how the US legal system works.

      When a user shares a song, they pay statutory damages hundreds or thousands of times of the song's original value.
      When a corporation rips off the public (by accident or on purpose), they get to just refund what they took without any "encouragement" to make sure it doesn't recur.

      Is that right, or am I missing something?

    12. Re:"Accidents" and "Refunds" by Myopic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very close to evil? Sheesh, you are a lot more forgiving than I am. I think it's evil to fail to provide straight-up easy plain non-bundled prices for each individual product in your line. It's hard to find any companies which offer that, and impossible for communications companies. But, eh, I'm sort of a hater that way.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't even have a Verizon account but I feel entitled to money by proxy for the suffering they have imposed that has filtered into the shared unconscious of humanity.

  4. "Mistaken charges" is a bit euphemistic by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    They had designed their phones such that there was a shortcut button to their web portal. Users without a data plan, taken to that portal, were charged for the data at the usual ridiculous out-of-plan rates. They could have the portal blocked but this just meant they were charged for the data used in retrieving the "this portal is blocked" page instead. So there's an interesting bit of background detail going on here. Maybe $2 per customer isn't much to the customer, but it's a tidy bit of extra revenue to Verizon.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:"Mistaken charges" is a bit euphemistic by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think Sprint is worse. Because whenever I would play an MP3 from the memory card in the phone, we got charged for data. I think their music player connects to the internet for some reason. My phone had a habit of launching the music player without my knowledge sometimes, perhaps due to a button placed on the outside of the phone. One day it played the same song all day and we were charged for several hours of internet use. This is regardless of the internet connection being explicitly turned off in the settings. If I tried to use the web browser, it would say the internet connection was off and ask if I wanted to turn it on. If I played an mp3, it would say nothing and just start charging for data.

  5. Erroneous billing error? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    As opposed to the usual error free billing errors?

  6. Cost of billing? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These customers would normally have been billed at the standard rate of $1.99 per megabyte for any data they chose to access from their phones.

    Meant to say, "... standard obscene rate of ..." Thats oligopoly cartel price gouging at its finest.

    I work in the telecom industry (not mobile phones). Over my career all the costs of landline long distance service have collapsed except for the cost of billing. Thus most of the "whatever cents per minute" cost is the cost of detailed billing, auditing, handling complaints. Finally the industry moved to "all you can eat" billing and everyone benefits.

    I have no interest at all in owning a "smart phone" or whatever until per meg billing is abolished. I'm guessing out of the $2/meg they blow about $1 on customer support / complaints / legal / billing clerks time / software costs in support of the billing process itself and stash about $1 in pure profit.

    If I'm going to pay money to get screwed, the scenario is not going to revolve around cell phone billing. F that whole industry and the shills and crooks that run it.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Cost of billing? by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reason why I'm strongly considering switching *from* Verizon: I only make about 1/2 dozen long-distance calls per year, landline only -- I don't have a cell phone. I'm paying about $75 per month even if I make *zero* calls incoming or outgoing. That's like a grand per year. There is no way in hell that it costs them that much to maintain the line, nor to operate their biz. I'm looking at a "dumb" cell phone which has no features other than being just a phone. No contract nor termination fees - the phone is owned outright. Flat rate per month with no roaming nor long-distance charges. X$ per month buys you X minutes, and that's it.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:Cost of billing? by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Metering a connection doesn't cost anything at all.

      Well, that would truly be a miracle. It costs a heck of a lot more to bill on a meter rather than flat per month.

      You can't seriously claim there will never be a cost in capital or labor when connecting operational gear with the financial servers? Never an opportunity cost or labor cost when scheduling maintenance? Whats that, we'll make it all quadruple redundant? No problem open the wallet wide... Never a customer support call to complain about overcharges? Now that operational logs are "valuable" they won't have to be stored more carefully? Never be an outage of the logging system that "costs the telco millions, in aggregate"? Never a cost of "fraud" where someone steals service, no matter how cheap? Never a cost of anti-fraud measures? Never a cost of internal employee monitoring to make sure they do not "correct" their own bills, and then the costs of firing and replacing them? Never a cost of auditing to prove its all honest, or alternatively the cost of dishonest auditing to cover it all up? No cost of all the personnel training / education / R+D for all levels from the router jockeys to the customer service team and all the way up the management chain? What about the cost of storing all metered data for months or maybe years to handle billing corrections?

      In comparison, billing by month has the unexpected cost of ... ... um ... Ah yes, prorated service upon cancellation. Of course you could "get rid" of prorated service contractually, a couple different ways, ranging from being nicely generous to being total stingy bastards. Hmm, gullibility test, I wonder if mobile phone operators would be generous or stingy... Anyway, that leaves us with the cost of monthly billing being ... uh .. yea thats it, exactly nothing. Going to be hard to either match or lower that cost with metered.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Cost of billing? by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flat rate per month with no roaming nor long-distance charges.

      Your jitterbug is OK. The marketing, last time I was unable to DVR FF past it, was aimed at the gray/white haired crowd. If you could hold your nose and buy it despite its marketing, you could probably hold your nose and buy a virginmobile phone, which has different, yet equally offensive marketing. And it is something like a quarter per minute prepay, unused balance zeros after a couple months. Which is psuedo-flat rate at ultra low usage, but in practice runs single digit dollars per month. You may save money on a $X buys you X minutes plan, even with expiration.

      The confuse-opoly of it is so annoying. If only there was a way around the (un)free market.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Cost of billing? by iammani · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I may say so, thats (jitterbug) a complete rip off, you will much better of with a pay as you go t-mobile prepaid plan. Its $100 buys $1000 minutes thats valid for 1 year. You can top-up when you want to and be billed exactly for the minutes you have used.

    5. Re:Cost of billing? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      people think of me as 'gadget freak' and I have at least 6 pc's always running (mix of linux, bsd, xp, win7), I do embedded development (very much into arduino things these days) and I have my own hardware lab at home. I live in the bay area and have 30 yrs in software devel.

      but I don't own a smartphone. don't really want to buy one either (or rather, don't want to pay $100/mo for the priviledge of being with the in-crowd and walking around touching a small flat panel pad thingie).

      phone companies suck but mobile phone co's suck even worse. the whole system stinks. if your company is paying your way, fine. mine isn't and I'm not into all the hassles and 2yr contracts that come along with this in-crowd game.

      its almost a fulltime job just knowing the various carriers, models, and having to dispose of your broken model (these aren't fixable by regular people and they are EOL'd very quickly) and relearn some new one, that's just not fun to me anymore. I can transition from one pc to another easily enough but doing that between various level of lock on phones is just crazy. (the vendors do this to us and we seem to just accept it!)

      I choose not to take part in this rat race. I know that 'phone == fun' to a lot of you but it isn't that way for all of us. the carriers and the various lock-downs, fees and contracts all make a really unappealing package for those who are not already sucked into the system.

      I get enough internet at home and at work. don't really need it while I'm away from my desk or system.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. This is $90 million on a billing error? by troll+-1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Mobile providers make way too much money. They're always nickle and dimming.

    Thank God they don't run the Internet

    Otherwise:
    • You'd buy your computer from your ISP and it wouldn't work with any other ISP.
    • Email would be like texting, sold as a separate service.
    • There would be no DNS. You'd get IP addresses from directory services, the way you get telephone numbers, and type them in your browser.
    • Your time on the Internet would be billed per minute.
    • Your monthly bill would list every website you went to. Overseas sites would be billed at a higher rate.
  8. I really don't understand cell phone companies by penguinchris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As others have noted, this is because of the practice of making the internet connection the most easy to select thing on the phone... despite the fact that extremely few people without smartphones use the internet on their phones. The two phones I had before I got an unlocked Nexus One were like this - you had to be careful because it's so easy to start the web browser, and there's no way to disable it. Nowadays, people also complain about the bloatware on Android phones, and now there's no easy way to get an unlocked Android phone.

    Sure, these companies can get away with whatever they want because there's not really a cell phone free market in the US. Since they're already getting away with whatever they want, though, why do they purposefully make customers angry with this kind of stuff?

    They act as if they don't actually make any money on selling phones and service, and their business model relies on tricking people into ridiculous charges. That's obviously not true, and it's simply insulting to the customers not only to nickel and dime them "legitimately", but also to trick them into paying ridiculous fees like this.

    I *don't* think there should be more regulation, but I hope that the FCC continues to do things like this, to the point where it's no longer profitable for the cell carriers to act like such assholes. Maybe then people won't hate them so much, too.

    1. Re:I really don't understand cell phone companies by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      there's not really a cell phone free market in the US.

      I *don't* think there should be more regulation,

      If, as you correctly observe, the market is unfree, why wouldn't you want it to be regulated to be fairer? There seems to be no other valid justification for regulation, so why apply it?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I really don't understand cell phone companies by Myopic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I *don't* think there should be more regulation

      YOU DON'T?!? Fer fuck's sake, what will it take to get through to people like you? You sit there and rant about bad corporate behavior, you recognize that government is the solution to the problem, and then you state that you don't favor more regulation. There is this asinine anti-regulation ideology in America for which we all suffer, and it's a big pain to deal with.

  9. Following up on a conjecture by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is totally conjecture, but I doubt Verizon would have been so willing to issue refunds without pressure.

    Hmmmm.... while I'm not sure a proof of this conjecture can be produced via rigorous mathematical analysis, any mathematician with Verizon service probably disagrees.

  10. I was overcharged hundreds of dollars by bmidgley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It looks like this is unrelated, but a fun adventure for everyone.

    I had a motorola flip phone I was using for tethering with verizon in 2007. I started getting bills for $600, $700, $800 for each month. I would call in and they would fix it. After about three months of this they told me they would not fix it any more. I had to get a firmware upgrade after which tethering stopped working. The device was worthless to me.

    When I looked at the bill, it seems I was being charged per minute if I connected through the 1xrtt network. One rep actually told me "unlimited broadband" meant only unlimited when it was 3g and I was responsible to pay for when it connected at the slower speed. But there was no way to disable the 1xrtt fallback. It was just a convenient lie.

    Then the collections department started calling me, saying "when do you think you will be paying this $1800 bill?" I asked them if they knew there were open tickets on the account to fix the broken charges. It basically came back to "but when do you think you will be paying this bill?"

    I insisted on a device replacement and they got me a palm treo that worked ok but never as well as the flip phone for what I needed. They also reversed all the bad charges.

    I quit verizon when the contract was done and I'm never going back.

  11. It doesn't take much delusion... by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'I've yet to meet an executive so far gone that he believes you can overcharge your customers and then repay the principal when you get caught. They like to be a lot more subtle than that.

    It doesn't take much for executives (and people in general) to delude themselves into thinking they're doing the right thing. Executives have an ethical responsibility to do whatever is in the best interest of the stockholders. Therefore, if it means more money for stockholders for them to screw over customers with a slight possibility of getting a hand slap at some point in the future, then it is their moral responsibility to do so.

  12. be aware if you have a VOIP account... by jvismara · · Score: 2, Informative

    it looks like they are not addressing another illegal charge: I have a VOIP account that gives me a local phone number to make international calls. I used it from my cell and Verizon charged me $1.4 / min to call Brazil, when I was not using their system to make an international call. I was using their network to call a local domestic number in the US. When discussing the problem with Verizon, they told me that their system was charged because of my call and they have to re-pass that cost to me... interesting that my local telephone company does not have that charge and do not re-pass any INVENTED costs to me. The fact that they traced that number as being a bridge of a VOIP company, shows their absolute lack of ethics. be aware of this scam by Verizon Wireless...

    --
    Keep smiling http://JorgeVismara.net digitally captured emotions
  13. First hand account? by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can say first hand, with confidence, the $5 refunds they are "giving" are a joke, and pale in comparison to the problem.

    I have a large family, and *had* a large family plan to match. Every single month I had "mystery charges" that they couldn't explain. No, it's not just one month, it's month after month of spending hours on the phone sorting out why the !@#$ I'm getting charges without decent explanation.

    Charges with names like "account restoral fee" (on a line that had been in continuous use for years) and "recovery surcharge". (what's being recovered? And why am I being charged for it!?) Charges that, when enquired about, nobody could justify. Charges so egregious that it sometimes doubled my total bill.

    I wrote letters, I complained, I got stonewalled and nobody said much. I switched providers to Metro PCS, where the deal is simple: prepaid, unlimited calling, no contract. Wow, what a difference! I pay my bill, I get service. I don't, the service quits. The bill is always the same - no surprises, and they don't even have a shutoff/restoral fee so if I'm late paying the bill, I go online and pay, and within a few minutes, service is active.

    Verizon, I was one of your best customers, but now, you've lost me for good. And I don't hesitate to talk about it.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.