Slashdot Mirror


Woman Faces $9,100 Verizon Bill For Data She Says She Didn't Use (dslreports.com)

A Verizon Wireless customer says she received a bill of $9,100 for hundreds of gigabytes of data usage which never consumed. The woman told the Cleveland Plain Dealer she was on Verizon's 4GB shared data plan, and like any normal person, the bill of $8,535 from Verizon for consuming 569GB of data in a matter of few days doesn't compute well with her. The problem, as DSLR reports, is that when she tried to find out what caused the data usage, Verizon website told her "the activity you are trying to perform is currently unavailable. Please try again later." She couldn't and switched to T-Mobile, after which Verizon charged her a penalty of $600.

209 comments

  1. New form of measurement? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If $600 is now referred to as a "plenty", what would the $9,100 be?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      One and a half decaplenties.

    2. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paltry

    3. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      TFA reads "penalty". We're now at a point where slashdot even fucks up copy-paste...

    4. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give or take a few centiplenties...

    5. Re:New form of measurement? by JonahsDad · · Score: 0

      A plethora. Think of how many pinatas you could buy with $9100.

    6. Re:New form of measurement? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      A joke

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $8,500 is the data fee. The $600 is the penalty for breaking her contract early.

    8. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn You Auto Correct! (.com)

      Maybe stop submitting stories with a phone?

      captcha: bitterly

    9. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone typed that on a phone, and what they tpyed got autocompleted/autocorrected to "plenty" instead of "penalty". Personally I think typos are better than badly autocompleted/corrected texts. I can read over most typos without a hitch. These wrong words keep tripping me up.

    10. Re:New form of measurement? by ITRambo · · Score: 0

      I just learned that a plethora is defined as 15 plentys. Cool.

    11. Re:New form of measurement? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This, folks, is why you should pay attention to who runs for state attorney general.

      Companies get away with this bullshit because private individuals can't hold them to account. It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.

      This is why we have consumer protection laws, to protect people from bullshit they can't afford to litigate. A shot across the bow from your state's consumer protection bureau counts for a lot more than an angry contract termination call. And if your state AG's office doesn't have a consumer protection division, or if there aren't consumer protection laws in your state, well you're SOL until someone changes that.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:New form of measurement? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If $600 is now referred to as a "plenty", what would the $9,100 be?

      Depends on the country, but in the US we generally refer to it as a "shitload".

    13. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys... sigh.

      It's a decaPlentyV + 100

    14. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA reads "penalty". We're now at a point where slashdot even fucks up copy-paste...

      That furthers my theory that manishs is a malfunctioning AI

    15. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 9000?

    16. Re:New form of measurement? by Jawnn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This, folks, is why you should pay attention to who runs for state attorney general.

      Companies get away with this bullshit because private individuals can't hold them to account. It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.

      This is why we have consumer protection laws, to protect people from bullshit they can't afford to litigate. A shot across the bow from your state's consumer protection bureau counts for a lot more than an angry contract termination call. And if your state AG's office doesn't have a consumer protection division, or if there aren't consumer protection laws in your state, well you're SOL until someone changes that.

      But, but.. Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem St. Reagan said so. Besides, the free market will fix this. It always magically corrects all wrongs done to consumers by companies whose only obligation is to their shareholders.

      So... how's my Rand fan-boy impression coming along?

    17. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hadn't noticed yet, Verizon is a shitty company. Stop acting surprised.

    18. Re:New form of measurement? by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      The word "tpyed" confirms your preference for typos ;)

    19. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jes, El Guapo

    20. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my neck of the woods, it could be a "fuckton". Increase the order of magnitude and it could be a "metric fuckton".

    21. Re:New form of measurement? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      A leg.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty spot on. Thanks. Now I've lost my appetite.

    23. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just use a prepaid plan. Works great, no stress.

    24. Re:New form of measurement? by lgw · · Score: 1

      One and a half decaplenties.

      C'mon, that's a sesquidecaplenty! (At least, if we're going to be sesquipedalian about it.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use shitcar loads. Ten fucktons (Imperial) to a shitcar.

        Prove Yourself: (captcha:) impostor

    26. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.

      Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys (or at least it's not unusual to not have one). Fight it. That kind of mentality is why they try this sort of thing. If everyone they did this to took them to small claims court they'd think twice.

      Got a "buddy" in the process of suing AT&T like this right now. They've already offered to settle for about 50% of what he was asking for. He's holding out.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    27. Re:New form of measurement? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys

      Except that Verizon is the plaintiff, so they select the venue. There is no way this is going to small claims. Also, her contract almost certainly says she is required to use binding arbitration. The arbitrator earns millions from Verizon's repeat business and will never see this woman again, so they have an obvious bias.

    28. Re:New form of measurement? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sure. But you can't completely avoid all contractual entanglements in the modern world, so it's nice to know that the other guy can't dictate terms because he's got you over the barrel.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:New form of measurement? by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I was out of state, and 2 days into my new billing cycle i got texts saying i was at my data limit. Called them freaking out, they said it was just an error and ignore it. Which I did. But still seemed like "WTF? Why can't they count how much data goes into or out of my device?", like, it should be the most basic part of their system.

      Now, finally... I'm within a month of my contract ending. T-Mobile, here I come!

    30. Re:New form of measurement? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, no, you got it wrong...she was charged $8,535, which is not one $600, nor two $600s, but a plenty of $600s.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    31. Re:New form of measurement? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      As a former Verizon customer: I used about 15-20 gigs per month on a grandfathered unlimited high-speed LTE plan. Which I would have lost due to needed plan changes for other family members. So I went to T-Mobile. Have been with them three years now and get excellent value for dollar. I pay (out the door) $158 for 6 lines (all phones are already paid for) and my line has the full high speed unlimited add-on. I'm using around 25 gigs a month now.

      That said, our experience all over Florida and the east coast is that when you have service, T-Mo is fine. But they have far more dead spots for data than Verizon. Verizon truly has a top-notch network. And crappy policies.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    32. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff. And no, even if they were to sue her, they'd have to do it in the county of her residence, or the court has no jurisdiction. You can't just sue someone in NY when your business is in CO and she lives in GA, because you think the NY court is going to rule in your favor.

      Secondly, regarding arbitration - even if they produce a contract that they can prove she agreed to (far from a certainty), they're probably not going to want to actually go through with arbitration on a $10K claim.

      Thirdly, your last comment is so asinine I'm not sure how to respond to it. The arbitrator is not biased against the litigant because there's some shady deal in which they make "millions" by Verizon bringing them cases. Verizon (and all major corporations) generally avoid actual courtrooms and arbitration whenever possible because it costs one hell of a lot of money (even if they win). So, no, that "obvious bias" doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination. If there's a bias (and I'm certainly not insinuating that the AAA is always as impartial as it claims to be) it wouldn't be for that reason.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    33. Re:New form of measurement? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Aversion to big government can be a consistent ideology. You assume that this woman needs government to solve her problem.
      It sounds like competition (T Mobile) has provided her an alternative. As for the bill, is it not big government that might cause this woman problems, if it sides with mega-corp to enforce some type of action against her?

      Top marks for the Randie impersonation!

      Err... you were being ironic, right? It's hard to tell these days.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    34. Re:New form of measurement? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff.

      What is she going to sue for? In order to bring a suit you have to state damages. If she hasn't paid the fine she hasn't been damaged. If she does pay it she's essentially agreeing to it.

      You can't just sue to "not pay a bill", unless she somehow wants to somehow claim that receiving the bill caused emotional distress for which she's due compensation (fat chance). She has the choice of ignoring it, and if so Verizon can sue for damages, in which case she'd need to lawyer up in response.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    35. Re:New form of measurement? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys

      Who do you think Verizon is going to send to small claims court to represent them? The CEO? Some random secretary? The entire company?

      No, it'll be an attorney, or some other class of legal beagle.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    36. Re:New form of measurement? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's why I've stuck with Verizon. I live in a small town. Pretty much every major carrier has service here, but for most of them this is the edge of their coverage area - with Verizon it's in the middle.

      If I drive even 2 miles outside of town in the wrong direction almost all of them will drop out whilst Verizon will hold a signal out for 20-30 more miles. My parents and my brother both live outside of all the other areas but within Verizon's service area. If I want to have signal when I'm at their houses, I pretty much HAVE to use Verizon.

      FWIW though, I've never really had trouble out of them. I still haven't had any strange data usage show up on my account, and maybe I'm just cynical, but in general knowing how incompetent the average person is when it comes to understanding networks I'm betting many others don't really understand it either. I've known quite a few people to accidentally turn their Wifi off and be using mobile data for extended periods of time without realizing it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    37. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't just sue someone in NY when your business is in CO and she lives in GA, because you think the NY court is going to rule in your favor.

      Tell that to TX.

    38. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what I meant (and I wasn't clear) was that she should wait until they try to come after her for it. A ding on her credit report, harassing her for the money, selling the account to a 3rd party and representing this amount as correct, her inability to get credit at another company for a cell phone because of the report, etc might qualify as damages.

      Not being a lawyer, I wouldn't make a prediction on the "emotional distress" component, though stranger things have happened...

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    39. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      *Sigh.* Again, what I meant was that SHE doesn't need an attorney and therefore wouldn't necessarily be required to foot that expense.

      I am really curious, though, for the entertainment value (even if the saner part of me may regret asking). What other "class of legal beagle" were you referring to?

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    40. Re:New form of measurement? by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      A joke

      Sure, coming right up!
      "In Soviet Verizon, data uses you!"
      Or how about
      "I just flew in from Chicago and boy are my arms tired from beating the crap out of these Verizon accountants who tried to defraud me out of ten thousand bucks!"
      That last one's more observational humor.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    41. Re:New form of measurement? by tsqr · · Score: 2

      This, folks, is why you should pay attention to who runs for state attorney general.

      Or maybe this is why you should learn to advocate effectively for yourself. Verizon tried to bill me for a data overage a little over a year ago. I called them, told the representative that I thought the bill was in error, and asked him to look at my data usage history over the previous two years. He did, and then not only reversed the overage charge, but gave me a "bonus" package that tripled my monthly data allocation for the next year to compensate me for my inconvenience.

      I've gone through similar exercises quite a few times with cable providers, insurance companies, and other businesses that have reputations for always wanting to screw over the customer, and I've found that a calm but resolute approach, in combination with a little data, works wonders.

    42. Re:New form of measurement? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      If $600 is now referred to as a "plenty", what would the $9,100 be?

      She should just cut them a check for $91.00 -- they'll consider the bill paid in full.

    43. Re:New form of measurement? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Referring to the patent suits? Those are in Federal court for violations of Federal law. The Feds have no interest in whether one private party owes another $10K.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:New form of measurement? by SeriousTube · · Score: 1

      A deplorable plethora.

    45. Re:New form of measurement? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court ...

      "small claims court" LOL. That's a good one. Here is how it would go:

      Verizon customer: "I have this huge bill that I want to contest".
      Verizon lawyer: "We have this arbitration agreement. Customer has no right to be heard here"
      Court: "This case is dismissed."

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    46. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      I'm just hazarding a f*cking guess here, but of the two of us, I'm betting I'm the only one who's actually ever been in said courtroom.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    47. Re: New form of measurement? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      In this case, zero. Verizon reversed the data charges, no explanation.

      link

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    48. Re: New form of measurement? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Not true. She is free to sue for a declaratory judgment stating she doesn't owe the money.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    49. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what your government provided text book told you in school, we do not have a free market in the United States at least in many industries. Go an try and start your own cell phone company, you'll find you need a government licences to use the wireless frequencies, zoning laws will prevent you from building cell towers on leased or owned land. If its zoned correctly, you will probably have height restrictions and have to get a tone of building permits. You will also have to pay all sorts of taxes including e-rate, franchise fees, and sales taxes.

    50. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is she going to sue for? In order to bring a suit you have to state damages. If she hasn't paid the fine she hasn't been damaged. If she does pay it she's essentially agreeing to it.

      Attempted fraud?

      (fraudulent charges and refusing to justify them alleging "technical issues" being that)

    51. Re:New form of measurement? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Free market" does not mean a market free from government regulation.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    52. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course free market fixes things, but for who? If you are a free marketeer, you have to have different set of ethics as a planned marketeer. It is this different world view that makes it so difficult to do politics today. That's why all this political correctness on one side, and the populist on the other side.
       
      The free marketeer doesn't mind there is inequality. When there are poor people, it is not his problem. The poor will have to lift themselves out of poverty. The planned marketeer does care for inequality. When there are poor people he would not shy away from taking money from someone who is rich to give it to the poor. The problem with a pure planned economy however is that there is already a lot of equality and the rich aren't that rich as in a free market economy.

      So in a pure planned economy the rich are less rich because of the equality, and often have to give a large part of there income to either the poor or to yet another economic plan that tries to create jobs for those poor.

      But in a pure free market the rich will become richer and richer because of the inequality. Until now all pure free market economies have evolved to a very small class with rich people and a very large class of none rich people. On top of that, depending on the ethics of a society, there is also a rather large class of slaves because many necessary services can no longer be done in a free market because the wages are too low to survive as a free person. In my country there are plenty of rich people who have hired some east European to do chores, like cleaning the house, making dinner, gardening, ... They are hardly paid and live in a room just like the old house slaves.

      So what society to choose then? It is not easy. Both extremes are not ideal for our current western ethics. Either we have to struggle finding a nice equilibrium between planned/guided and free markets, or we can change our ethics. We are good at changing ethics. Just look at the political correctness of today. I can not longer say the same things as 20 years ago without being called racist for example. Young people think that all the problems we face in today's society is because of the old people who haven't been reeducated to speak political correct. The young people just call the old people racists. Words that didn't have synonyms and always had a neutral meaning are considered extreme racist. But old people often don't know this has changed and don't understand why you people get so easily offended. This is an example of the changing ethics of our current western societies.
       
      But what will we do next? We can just reintroduce slavery or we can force everybody to be happy without luxury. But both will lead to a new set of rules that allows inequality or forces equality. When a state does such a thing, it will be difficult to enforce the rules and new ethics. Many people will be unhappy, so you need a huge police force or a military and you need to punish dissidents. Or you can also start to educate people from a young age with a blind believe in the set of rules. But it is not easy to just believe in a law book, it needs something more like gods and an example of the perfect human. But in both cases we will be capitulated back in the middle ages with no scientific and social progress.

      Today we are at a point where the people in the society have to make the right decision for a happy live for our children. Will it be the extreme freedom of the libertarians that will reintroduce the feudal system with flexible workers as the new peasants trying to pay the bills and pay back their debts (personal/state debt is the equivalent of the biblical original sin)? Will it be the totalitarian system that might protect freedom from some by taking away freedom of others? Or will we finally be able to find the right mix between both extreme economic systems, or maybe even a completely different economic system?

    53. Re:New form of measurement? by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Very true. The best analogy I have come up with is that regulation is, or should be, analogous to the landmasses and structures that regulate the flow of commerce and prevent problems like resonances, "water hammer"-like events, and obstructions. An even more obscure analogy - regulations can prevent a too-large shark from going upstream, getting stuck, and blocking the flow, swallowing everything, or just dying and stinking up the place. To the extent that government bodies participate in commerce, they become less like the land masses and more like the boats and fish.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    54. Re: New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, zero. Verizon reversed the data charges, no explanation.

      link

      The $600 may have legitimately been in the contract. New phones are subsidized, and you risk these fees by accepting a phone like that. (I personally recommend just buying one outright and getting a cheaper carrier.) Either way, I have no great argument against that, unless it wasn't spelled out.

      The $9100 is ridiculous. Your max monthly charge for something like that should be spelled out and likely no more than a simple multiple of your base cost, such as 5. If they have to cut your data usage to avoid exceeding it, then fine, but you should see in your contract that your max cost for data is $MAX_COST and that after using $MAX_GB your done.

      Standard contracts like this should have risks to consumers bounded in some mutually understood way. The companies certainly bound their risks with all the binding arbitration clauses. That should be both ways. That the company reversed the charges is good. That a bill was even printed with those charges is not. If they had auto pay that would have resulted in a complete mess and a non trivial amount of damage to their credit.

    55. Re: New form of measurement? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      This is contract enforcement, one of the bedrock functions of government in a modern society. It's amazing how people like you create this straw man libertarianism since you don't understand what we actually believe.

    56. Re:New form of measurement? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      At $10K, yes, you're correct; as soon as you get above $75K, though, if the parties are from different states, you can get it into federal court by invoking diversity jurisdiction.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    57. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to do that job, it seems like your particular account was in a position where the agent could actually do something about it. Most of the time, the most you're going to get is a $5 credit and maybe reversing a 1GB overage. It also sounds like you weren't on the right plan for your usage, which is pretty common when people set things up at the store and don't pay attention to the fine print.

      But you're pretty much right. If you know your shit before picking up the phone and are *civil*, if things really are wrong then the agent will know what to do to correct it. But keep in mind that agents are pushed to never admit that it's Verizon's fault, they're coached to ask you about other options before disconnecting a line, etc (because it reflects on them), and if you're account is already in a good spot, then the most that agent's gonna be able to do is likely only a $5 credit. I can't tell you how many times I was on the phone with a customer and totally felt where they were coming from, only to find out I couldn't help them, even if I ignored the rules.

      Ultimately I left that soul-sucking, thankless job, but I'd say most agents have the *will* to help, but not always the *means*.

      tldr: you got lucky, agents often can't do shit on their own.

    58. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the credit card companies have behaviour tracking and get a hold of you when they notice a discrepancy to verity it, and those are often a few hundred dollars or less, where in the name of Teddy Roosevelt was Verizon's behaviour tracking? Oh... yah.... right.... they WANT you to over use. There should be an automatic shutoff if a user runs over by more than 50% of their data allotment in a few days. Nearly 600 Gb? Something looks very broken to me.

      Frankly, I think all of these billings should have to go through a review panel and the carrier should have to produce solid data that proves it happened. I've worked inside the networks of major telcos (and people where I worked worked inside Verizons) and I have no reason to believe their software is flawless or that errors aren't possible in the accounting.

      And the mere fact they are allowed to charge beyond a reasonable max (at which point they should instantly cut off everything but emergency calls), is unconscionable. It's predatory and shows that they care not a whit about their customers. It's like the absence of railings on the Death Star - it makes no sense and it harms people to have that idiocy permitted.

      Then again, Verizon didn't get to be huge and powerful by worrying about its customers.

    59. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kaczynski is loose and off his meds again I think...

    60. Re: New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shitloads

    61. Re:New form of measurement? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      "Free market" does not mean a market free from government regulation.

      In the truest sense of the term, it does. It's all a myth of course, because it assumes that those making the purchasing decisions have all the information that they need to choose wisely. The FDA was born because consumers clearly lacked such insight and were suffering, even dying for it. Despite what that fuckwit Trump is saying, some government regulation is not just necessary, it is welcome.

  2. Summary is correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon sure did charger her a-plenty.

  3. Verizon charged her a penalty not a plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    manishs - Try reading posts out loud to see if they make sense. Just using the spell checker won't catch these errors.

    1. Re:Verizon charged her a penalty not a plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a name like Manish, it might be making the sensible reading aloud as well.

  4. "a plenty of $600" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank you for writing the needful.

  5. Ignored Messages by bfpierce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or did Verizon not send them. I get these constantly when I'm towards 90% of my monthly allotment.

    1. Re:Ignored Messages by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Don't assume competence on Verizon's part. Almost a decade ago a friend of mine got an offer to save a few bucks if she would combine her Verizon cell phone bill with her Verizon DSL bill. She signed up for it, got the first combined bill, and paid it. A few weeks later she got a notice from Verizon Wireless that she hadn't paid her bill. She called to find out what was going on and got the run-around. After enough calls she got someone at Verizon (DSL) to investigate it. They insisted they'd fixed the problem so she figured it was resolved. Next month she got another past due notice from Verizon Wireless, with a warning that they would discontinue service if her past two months weren't paid. In a panic she called Verizon Wireless to explain she had a combined bill. No luck - Verizon Wireless claimed they had no way to check the payment status of a combined bill, and refused to call the number for the Verizon DSL rep who offered to help her clear it up. No amount of talking would get them to actually do something to fix the problem. In their minds, they made no mistakes and the only aceptable fix was for her to pay her "bill".

      Long story short, they cancelled her cell phone plan, gave her phone number to another customer, and screwed up her credit report.

    2. Re:Ignored Messages by sycodon · · Score: 2

      My kid went to Mexico with her boyfriend and his family for the week.

      On Friday, I received three text messages. One stating that the Data limit had been used up and that they were adding more. They second said the data charge was over $1000. The third said that the charge was about $3000 and they turned off the data. All in the span of 3 minutes.

      They wanted me to pay them and I told they to go fuck themselves. It will be off my credit report next year.

      AT&T, fucking you over like no others.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Ignored Messages by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Don't assume competence on Verizon's part.

      Or any traditional career, of that part. I once had a line on central switchboard but was build separately. The phone company screw up royally, charging $1 04 $2 for calls that should have been a dime. My bill was only a few hundred dollars, and even when I got someone to issue a credit (the commercial people insisted it was a home account, and the home people insisted it was a commercial one) it never showed up on my account.I had faxes stating the credit was applied, at one point the CEO's office rep was involved but they never figured it out. The phone person at the residence said they had talked to the company and was told it was not worth the trouble to fix the billing... A friend, who worked with the company's CEO, said just don't pay it; they will eventually write it off which is what they did. It never should up on my credit report either, probably because they didn't have any information on me other than a box at the university I was attending. I kept a thick file for number of years and finally chucked it after never hearing anything again; I wonder who was getting hundreds of dollars of credits each month, probably whoever now had my old number.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Ignored Messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kid went to Mexico with her boyfriend and his family for the week.

      On Friday, I received three text messages. One stating that the Data limit had been used up and that they were adding more. They second said the data charge was over $1000. The third said that the charge was about $3000 and they turned off the data. All in the span of 3 minutes.

      They wanted me to pay them and I told they to go fuck themselves. It will be off my credit report next year.

      AT&T, fucking you over like no others.

      AT&T shipped me a phone I had purchased. The delivery man supposedly left the package on our dock and didn't require a signature for delivery. This was the day before Thanksgiving so we were gone for 4 days after. A month goes by and I receive a past due notice on my service. I say on what? I never received my new phone. (Back then it took a couple weeks to receive phones.) So I did a proof of delivery. AT&T said it was dropped off. The dock worker never saw the package.

      AT&T refused to send out a new phone and after the bill reached $300 they sent it to a collection agency and screwed with my credit for almost 5 years until I paid the agency $100 to leave me alone. That was almost 18 years ago. In hindsight I shouldn't have paid a dime.

    5. Re:Ignored Messages by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      That's entirely your and your kids fault, and collections stays on for 7.5 years.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    6. Re:Ignored Messages by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      AT&T is the worst. They are on my permanant shit list along with DirecTV, Vonage, and Sprint.

      I was house sitting for my boss and taking care of his pets while he went on vacation a while back. He knew that I frequently called my GF in Dominican Republic so he said to feel free to use his land line while he was away but not to spend more than 2 hours per day.

      Well... The first night I called and talked for about 1 hour then the line disconnected. It happens sometimes, the phone company in Santo Domingo isn't exactly the best quality. It still had a dial tone and I could call my cell phone ok just not her, The next night I noticed that the line was still not working so I tried line 2 (he had 4 lines total). After about an hour the same thing happened. Hmm weird, maybe there is something wrong with the lines at my bosses place. He does live 45 min outside of the city maybe there's an outage or something. There was a big storm the other night. This continues each night until all four lines stopped connecting calls to my GF.

      On the way home from his vacation a family member passed away so when he arrived back home he needed to place lots of long distance calls to friends and relatives urgently. Of course none of these calls were connecting on all 4 lines. He calls the phone company and they direct him to AT&T. AT&T tells him that a billing issue has blocked the outgoing calls and that he needed to pay $2800 before they would restore service. He was not happy. He assumed that I spent the entire time on the phone when in reality it was not more than 4 hours. At the time Sprint was charging $0.55/min and MCI charged $0.35/min. A reasonable human would have expected AT&T to be a tiny bit competitive and maybe charge $0.80 or $1.00 at the most. Nope. AT&T charged $12.00 per minute. They were nice enough to terminate the connection when each line reached $700 but they would not negotiate the price one bit. They weren't in a hurry to restore service after payment either. Cellular long distance was terrible back then or non existent.
      He was pissed off, but knew he couldn't really blame me. I felt bad and agreed to help pay it.

    7. Re:Ignored Messages by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      At $12/minute, if you spent two hours per day on the phone with your GF in DR, that would have been $1,440 per day, or $5,760 for four days (you don't say how long you were house sitting but at one line per night, four lines, you must have been there at least four days).

      So I don't understand. If he was billed $2,800 total, that's less than half of what it would have been had you talked for the agreed on two hours per day for four days. In fact it appears that the bill was for one hour per day, which is what you say is the time you were talking each time before the line went dead.

    8. Re:Ignored Messages by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Somehow you missed where he said "the first message said the data limit had been reached and they were adding more", and the fact that all three messages arrived within 3 minutes. I don't know if any court could hold a customer to that bill, where it is clearly demonstrable that there was a limit in place, and the phone company removed it without authority, and their charges are clearly ursarous if they can reach $3000 in such a short time.

      The problem here is that roaming rates have not changed since the 1990s when charging by the MB was reasonable, because noone used data for anything other than the occasional 4k WAP site.

    9. Re:Ignored Messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said one thing. What happened is probably another,

      Most likely the kid used up all the data uploading HD videos and the text messages were sent over the course of multiple days or even weeks, not minutes.

  6. i would tell verision by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    to go jump in a lake and hich a ride on a slow boat to china, i would NOT fork over that kind of money to ANYBODY, one reason is i dont have it and if i did it would not be going to a god damned phone company

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i would tell verision by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      to go jump in a lake and hich a ride on a slow boat to china, i would NOT fork over that kind of money to ANYBODY, one reason is i dont have it and if i did it would not be going to a god damned phone company

      Which is all well and good but Verizon will just turn it over to a collections agency and let them deal with it. Then you are well and truly fucked.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:i would tell verision by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      bullshit, collection agencies can go jump in a lake too right along side verizion

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:i would tell verision by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Collections agencies have no power. They will act like they do, but they are lying.

  7. Broken by design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon and Comcast websites are the worst I ever have to deal with. Routinely broken and return "Sorry, we can't perform that action at the moment. And actually, we aren't sorry." messages.

  8. A link to the real article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instead of the crappy DSLReport blurb - http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/verizon_data_overages_other_ch.html

    1. Re:A link to the real article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A real link to the real article instead of the crappy URL

  9. Verizon charged her a plenty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So she couldn't try again later? Where does it say that? The "article" was bad enough, this summary makes it even worse.

  10. OnStar data plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Started spamming me to buy more data because I only have 20% remaining. That's funny because I never used it and never even turned on the WiFi hotspot. Needless to say, when the trial period is over I won't be buying their ridiculously overpriced plan.

  11. SpeedTest by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we know what happens to all of that data that's routed through /speedtest.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  12. You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I pay $30/month for 20 Gigs of 3G. If I ever exceed it (I haven't), my bandwidth is throttled to 50KB/s until the end of the month.

    Verizon are charging (8535/569) $15/Gig? Incredible. Isn't there a US telecoms regulator?

    1. Re: You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High speed Internet is such a joke in the states.

    2. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its even worse in Canada

    3. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Yep. I got a notice today, in fact, from Verizon that I was nearing my cap and that it'd be $15/GB over unless I paid $20 to go to the next tier.

      I really don't get why they're crowing about faster and faster speeds, 5G, and the like. It's just a recipe for blowing through your plan allowance faster.

    4. Re: You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the US moved on from 3G long time ago. Also, I pay $37 for unlimited LTE from Verizon. ($50 a month grandfathered plan with 25% corporate discount). My friend on same plan routinely goes over 100GB a month and it's faster than most cable internet.

    5. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much worse. I would literally suck a dick to get the mobile plans they have in the states.

    6. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      3G? WTF? I pay $30 for 4G in the US unlimited. YOU are the one getting scammed.

    7. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Verizon are charging (8535/569) $15/Gig? Incredible. Isn't there a US telecoms regulator?

      I think AT&T isn't much cheaper. Either the same price or $10 per GB for overage (over the data amount of your plan).

    8. Re: You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At&t (finally) allows your plan to be slowed if you hit your data limit, instead of charging you extra for data.

    9. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Can you provide a link to that?

    10. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Is this a multi line plan or grandfathered something? I have 3 lines for $30 each, 2.5Gb 4g data each then throttled unlimited, and that seemed to be about as good as one could get.

    11. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I really don't get why they're crowing about faster and faster speeds, 5G, and the like. It's just a recipe for blowing through your plan allowance faster.

      Faster and faster speeds are accomplished not only by using more and wider frequency bands, but also by more efficiently using those frequencies. That means the overall capacity increases and so (theoretically) they could offer more data at the same price.

      So yes if your data cap stayed constant you could blow through them faster. Or they could give you more. Or they have the ability to service more customers without impacting your speeds.

    12. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay €42 per month for unlimited 100/100 service. And I mean unlimited: we've only gone above 1TB a few times, and are always above 1Tb (B=byte, b=bit), but that's all included in the base cost. Likewise, we have no blocked ports, incoming or outgoing, and run a web server and a mail server at home.

    13. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Now that people are used to having, say, a 15 GB per month cap and paying more if they go over it, do you REALLY BELIEVE the telcos will up it to, say, 50 GB per month before you have to pay more just because they switch to a more efficient technology?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    14. Re: You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice deal, but most people can't get access to that plan.

    15. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I don't know those exact conditions. But I know for my personal account that I've had with T-mobile my data has gone up over the years while keeping about the same price. I just got an email a week ago that I was getting a 33% increase in data for free.

    16. Re: You folks in the US are getting scammed by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's telecoms in general, not just HSI. The cellular companies are horrible, and so are the ISPs (phone companies like Verizon with DSL or GPON/FiOS, and also cablecos like Comcrap with DOCSIS).

      Our prices are ridiculous, our service levels are atrocious, and there's no good government regulation keeping these companies in line. ALL of the developed nations (except probably Canada) are much better, along with many of the not-so-developed ones. Romania, for instance, has far better telecom service than the US does.

    17. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Much worse. I would literally suck a dick to get the mobile plans they have in the states.

      For that deal, you would have to sign up with Comcast.

    18. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the population density of where you live vs. the population density of the USA? Most US telecoms cover virtually the entire USA. I'm assuming your telecom company covers your whole company.

      Do the math and I think you might see that while US telecoms charge too much, it's not as bad as it looks. Towers with only a few dozen people connected to them don't cost any less to run than a tower in the middle of London. In fact, they tend to cost more, since power, networking, etc are harder to run out in the sticks.

    19. Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will if the cost of providing 50GB per month drops due to technology and competition with other co...Oh I see now.

  13. She switched carriers because... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    she was afraid of being put on hold.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  14. Verizon Has Issues by JumbleGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just about a month ago, Verizon was reporting that my wife had used some ridiculous amount (can't remember exactly how much) of data on her phone. It turned out that both their website & their phone app were reporting MB as GB. It took them several days to fix it.

    1. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon certainly has issues. I won't return to being a customer of theirs unless they paid me. (It's not so bad that I wouldn't use them for money.)

    2. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My phone bill has not been right in a year. It is 10 dollars off, in my favor.

    3. Re:Verizon Has Issues by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just about a month ago, Verizon was reporting that my wife had used some ridiculous amount (can't remember exactly how much) of data on her phone. It turned out that both their website & their phone app were reporting MB as GB. It took them several days to fix it.

      Verizon should realize that it's unlikely an individual is going to pay an almost $10k data bill.

      So...why do they even allow you to run one up? By default, you should be shut off if you go over "n" times your limit (say your limit is 2G...after 6G, your data service is shut off). That way, Verizon gets their "nominal" overage charges, and nobody's all sue-happy. Why isn't this a thing? If you're some kind of commercial super user, you could sign away that protection, but for 99.44% of their users, it would eliminate this bad publicity.

    4. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because there's always that chance some moron who signed up for automatic payments has that kind of balance available in his checking account or credit card limit.

      all the more reason, btw, to take paper billing and write a check every month the good ol' fashioned way.

    5. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon charges for that. It's called "safety mode". They charge you $5 a month for it!

      The reality is they make major bank on all the people who go over "just a little" so they have no real incentive to stop people from going over. In the odd corner case like this they just write it off if the person is smart enough to fight it.

    6. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest moving to somewhere without an extradition treaty before they correct it and add late payment surcharges, it'll be cheaper.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    7. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Calydor · · Score: 1

      That sounds suspiciously like that old 0.02 cent problem. Wasn't THAT Verizon as well?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    8. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a thing for the same reason why banks used to be allowed to charge you an overdraft fee from your checking which would then trigger another overdraft fee because your overdrafted account didn't have the funds to cover the original overdraft fee because it was overdrafted. Or process payments before deposits and charge overdrafts even when they knew the deposits would cover all the payments... And it will continue to not be a thing until the government stomps their boot on Verizon's criminal asses.

    9. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work with their billing as a VZ employee. They have no clue what to do or why it happens.

      My bill should be ~70. It has been as low as 20 and as high as 80. No overages or anything. Just randomly 'different'. Last month it was ~45.

      Then suddenly it will be right again just to start moving around next year.

      I actually have a pretty good idea what is wrong. They are messing with the feature codes and got something wrong. Its not the first time.

      Feature codes + AAA radius data = your bill.

      It probably honestly is not worth their time to fix it. They probably would need some set of engineers working 3-4 weeks on root cause plus fix time. It would probably cost them thousands to get back ~50 bucks.

    10. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vendors that sell products with actual "cost of goods sold" have credit limits. Telephone companies have no marginal cost for transmissions, so even if they have only a small chance of being paid, it is worth extending the credit. Hence they do not have a credit limit on accounts.

    11. Re:Verizon Has Issues by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      Had unlimited on two phones and a data card. I was paying about $215USD a month with 700Min and no text. They jacked it to around $265 a month, I called them and told them to put it back. They said they couldn't . OK, Cancel the data card service, I only use it a few times a year anyway and it was only backup internet connection for the girl friends IT job since she works from home. I also went to a 12GB shared data plan and unlimited talk and text as well as tethering on both phones making the data card unneeded now. The new bill is $134 a month she said. I said how the hell did that work out for you then! We now have $90+ more dollars in our pocket and the greedy fucks at Verizon have me making far more phone calls and spending allot more time on the phone than in the past. I always try to use up as many minutes and far more data than I did in the past just to spite them.

    12. Re:Verizon Has Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And as an ex-employee of theirs I can tell you that I brought it to the attention of a regional director and a president and neither seemed to care. I used to use that wording to credit international customers all the time.

    13. Re:Verizon Has Issues by rew · · Score: 1

      Suppose this "overcharging" happens to say 5% of the customers and say 10% of them simply pay up? My guess is that this would account for a shitload of cash.

    14. Re:Verizon Has Issues by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Some years ago it did work in a way similar to that. I was on a family plan with 1000 shared minutes (we weren't big talkers... more texts). One time we did manage to go over and got a big bill. Turned out one was trying to reach the DMV or whatever and kept calling, didn't realize that each call counted as 1 min. Yes, they tried roughly 300 times total in one day. So I went onto T-Mobiles site and limited minutes for *every* phone. Next time the boundary was hit, they could only make emergency and in-family calls, which don't count toward the limit.

      Most Android phones have some data usage tracking built in, so you can monitor in real-time. A few CM images I've used will notify and/or cut off data once the limit is reached.

      All of the above means the account owner must be proactive and either get their account set up for that, or use their phone to help. That's probably asking too much for most people.

  15. Bills could kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I imagine some older person on a fixed income could possibly have a stroke or heart attack from shock at such a bill. With all the algorithms gathering data on the data we use, you think they would invest in making sure of, I don't know, umm.. accuracy?

  16. sue first by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I told them that I won't pay the bill,'' Gerbus said. "I can either wait until they take it to a collection agency or when they take it to court. Either way, my credit history will be ruined. I can go bankrupt here.''

    It might be wise to consider (or threaten) suing first. Lawsuits bring you to the front of the bureaucracy line, and can resolve the issue without bankruptcy.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:sue first by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's how I resolved my dispute with Chase bank when they did some seriously underhanded sh!t.
      I told them that they were trying to get blood from a turnip as I would rather burn my money and go insolvent.
      They threatened to sue me, and I replied with: "Please do, I dare you to find a jury that will take your side on this".

      After that my interest rate was 0.00000% till my balance was paid.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That deserves a longer story.

    3. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting the story of the ridiculous overcharge to "go viral" is a sure way to get the bill written off.

      Mission accomplished, Verizon will drop all requests for payments in the next couple of days, since they don't particularly want the shitty publicity.

      Of course, she shouldn't be forced into such a drastic course of action.

    4. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post your full story please.

    5. Re:sue first by jetkust · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chase was trying to take his turnips because they though they had blood in them. So he threatened to sue them, but lost interest in the turnips already well before Chase gave them back.

    6. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the internet, not a cartoon show for children. You can say "shit".

    7. Re:sue first by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      This. If you just ignore it Verizon, or any company, can just claim you owe any amount of money they want and economically you will owe this until you contest it.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her credit history will NOT be ruined. She will not go bankrupt. The fact is, with a good credit history and a *single* anomaly, she has nothing to worry about. If she wants to she can add a note to her credit history that explains things but it is pretty obvious that this is a disputed charge (or something like that) and not a history of non-payment.

      When Mastercard refused to rewind a bad charge on my card, I just payed off the rest of the balance and shelved the card leaving the amount as owing. Many, many, many months later they reversed the charge and cancelled the card. I never checked what that did to my credit history but it couldn't have been much; I had no problem getting a different credit card and a mortgage after that.

    9. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please do, I dare you to find a jury that will take your side on this"

      chances are you would never have a day in court. there's probably something buried in the agreement with your bank that all disputes go through a binding arbitration venue of their choosing.

    10. Re:sue first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she wants to she can add a note to her credit history that explains things but it is pretty obvious that this is a disputed charge (or something like that) and not a history of non-payment.

      You mean the "Consumer Disagrees" on the bottom of the trade line? All that does is draw attention to the charge-off and tells the loan officer that you not only don't pay your debts, that you will try and make life difficult for the new lender if you go delinquent. Let me get my big red denied stamp now.

    11. Re:sue first by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The agreement in question was that I agreed to binding arbitration; the moment they said sue they lost that.

      As to the rest of the story, since people asked...

      I had a *sizable* life of loan deal with them at 2.99%. (about $30K, rolled a car loan, student loan, etc. into it).
      When the banking crisis hit no one wanted to carry these low interest loans with long payoffs, and no one would buy them from the lenders either. Since the agreement was for "Life of loan" they were stuck on the interest rate, but the loophole they found was that the minimum payment was not locked in.
      They jacked the minimum payment with only 15 days notice by 250%. Naturally I (and many others) was unable to pay so the account went delinquent. Now that the account was past due they could jack the interest to 29.99% APR. That is $750/mo in interest up from $75/month. I should mention that the day I received the increase notice I tried calling and saying to close my account and that I did not agree to the new terms, I was informed that option was not being made available in this case.

      As the account slipped further and further behind I tried an idea based on the common practice of companies like this sending out a check "cash this to enroll in our credit monitoring service" or whatnot.

      I drafted a repayment agreement at 0.000% (I did borrow the money, I should pay it back, but by their actions I decided they forfeit being able to earn any money from me) and wrote a check for the first payment.

      I looked up their business office (*not* payment office) and mailed the letter and check (both referencing the other and acceptance of terms by cashing check) attention: Account Manager.

      They cashed the check, so when I got my next bill showing the payment was made, but the terms not modified I called to inform them of the billing error. Hilarity ensued.

      It took nearly a week of back and forth, but finally they threatened to sue me and I replied with my dare.

      A brief silence was followed with "please hold on a moment" and a very unhappy but authoritative sounding person basically accepting my offer (they countered that they wanted the balance paid in 5 years, I was offering 6... since they agreed to the 0% interest I agreed to the 12 month acceleration).

      -nb

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    12. Re:sue first by sjames · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    13. Re:sue first by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As the account slipped further and further behind I tried an idea based on the common practice of companies like this sending out a check "cash this to enroll in our credit monitoring service" or whatnot. I drafted a repayment agreement at 0.000% (I did borrow the money, I should pay it back, but by their actions I decided they forfeit being able to earn any money from me) and wrote a check for the first payment. I looked up their business office (*not* payment office) and mailed the letter and check (both referencing the other and acceptance of terms by cashing check) attention: Account Manager.

      Genius.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:sue first by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      thank you. I thought so too. Trick was "attn: Account Manager"

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  17. that's why they are called service providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    they **** you in the *** every time

    1. Re:that's why they are called service providers by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      They hunt you in the er2 every time?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. Now we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    who that kid stole from.

  19. Accidental Overage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    You have to very, very specifically _try_ to get that much data on a mobile device. We're talking running torrents, binge watching Netflix 18+ hours a day for the entire month, etc.

    While those things are certainly possible, you don't "accidentally" do them. You might acci

    It's a billing error, and Verizon needs to own up to it.

    On that note: always check your bill, and never, ever let any company have an open ended billing mechanism (e.g. overage charges) against you. Verizon offers "safety mode", you should use it.

    1. Re:Accidental Overage? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They actually charge $5 per month extra for that "safety mode". It's ridiculously underhanded and sleazy and one of the reasons I'd rather not use Verizon.

    2. Re:Accidental Overage? by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 1

      I left Verizon years ago because I got tired of their "bill first, ignore questions later" attitude.

    3. Re:Accidental Overage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many data usage measuring apps that will warn you of your usage based on plan data and billing cycle configuration you set up. They may be off by a bit here and there but you will broadly know if you are running up a bill. And it becomes good data to have in case you go to court. Captcha - deplete

    4. Re:Accidental Overage? by Algan · · Score: 1

      They actually charge $5 per month extra for that "safety mode"..

      Not anymore

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    5. Re:Accidental Overage? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It depends on phone company. Many are very sleazy, and count error packets generated by their poor network infrastructure. For example my regular network usage is around 1GB/month, but at the end of last year, I went on an overseas trip for two weeks, and bought a local 2GB prepaid card - it was gone within 3 days.

    6. Re:Accidental Overage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that they tried to charge for it in the first place is sleazy. They retracted that pricing after it caused a ruckus in the market. It used to be $5 extra for the smaller plans and it was baked into the price of the higher plans.

  20. This is just another reason I like unlimited. by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    I don't have to worry If their measurement system messes up and says I used 12ZB of data or I happen to use 5GB on netflix my bill will always be the same.

    It's mostly just better for peace of mind.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  21. Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by jetkust · · Score: 2

    So Verizon's explanation for how the data got so high is apparently because she accessed Amazon 400 times during that period. So they actually think visiting a website 400 times would account for 560 gigabytes of data? Over a gigabyte per visit. How stupid can they be? More proof that signing up with a company that can just randomly bill you whatever they want is not a good idea. Verizon is stuck in the stone age.

    1. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

      If she was streaming a movie from Amazon Instant video that would be just about right.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Verizon's explanation for how the data got so high is apparently because she accessed Amazon 400 times during that period. So they actually think visiting a website 400 times would account for 560 gigabytes of data? Over a gigabyte per visit. How stupid can they be?

      Not that I disagree with the stupid claim, but amazon does have a video streaming service these days... Leave that running and Im sure you can chew up a reasonably chunk of data.

    3. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by jetkust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So she streamed 400 movies within the time period of a week or so ...

    4. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Maybe she bought a 500Gb hard drive, and 4 16Gb microSD cards. That would account for it, right?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to rack up ~600GB of data usage in 10 days she would have had to be watching full HD video (~3GB/h) every hour of every day.

      Of course that highly unlikely. And it's also highly unlikely it was an unattended device. Amazon, like other streaming providers, requires user interaction after every couple streams to prevent an unattended device from streaming data endlessly.

      Additionally, on a small mobile device, Amazon/netflix/etc will not send a full HD stream (3GB/h) but rather a smaller resolution stream suitable for the device (full HD would be utterly useless and just a waste for everyone) and at a small fraction of the full HD bitrate. We're talking a couple hundred KB/s throughput or about 1GB/hour.

      So the Amazon excuse it, at best, paper thin. It's a billing error.

    6. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      400 movies, 1.5 hours each (average?) - if she was streaming continuously it would take 25 days to watch all 400 movies.

      At 20Mb/s, if each move was on average 2GB, it would take 10 days to stream all the content (not watch, just the time it takes to download over 20Mb/s.) If you have consistent 20 Mbps over 3G, then your speed is better than I get! (Verizon standard LTE is typically between 5 & 12 Mbps).

      So, something is very very wrong, and someone is failing to do basic math verification in their analysis.

    7. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      So Verizon's explanation for how the data got so high is apparently because she accessed Amazon 400 times during that period. So they actually think visiting a website 400 times would account for 560 gigabytes of data? Over a gigabyte per visit. How stupid can they be? More proof that signing up with a company that can just randomly bill you whatever they want is not a good idea. Verizon is stuck in the stone age.

      AWS.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by swb · · Score: 2

      At a minimum they should have some kind of customer service flag pop up for agents when an individual calls about an absurdly high bill that's likely to be some kind of billing or data accounting error and that then routes the call to a team that handles them specifically.

      A team dedicated to these could eliminate the usual media clusterfuckery that happens when a carrier blindly tries to enforce not-believable billable and flag that person for the data/billing accounting developers so they could possibly track down an error in the system.

      And then waive the bill completely or at least reduce it to whatever last month's was -- that would create word of mouth good will that $1 million in advertising never would.

      It would be interesting to see a list of the top 100 consumer data consumers and how much they consumed from all the carriers. I don't doubt there are weird cases where people are perfectly willing to blow a couple of grand a month on data consumption, but it's kind of hard to think of non-business related situations where people would be regularly running up $1000+ monthly tabs for data and not doing anything about it.

      About the only case I can think of is someone who does consulting as an individual off their LTE connection and has the ability to bill their clients for all the data they consume. But even then, LTE isn't *that* fast and if you're pulling down a couple hundred gig a month, chances are your opportunity costs are such that you'd seek a faster download path just for the time savings.

    9. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a minimum they should have some kind of customer service flag pop up for agents when an individual calls about an absurdly high bill that's likely to be some kind of billing or data accounting error and that then routes the call to a team that handles them specifically.

      Hahahaha. That would require hiring and paying a handful of Americans, instead of third world boiler room script readers. Good one! Haven't laughed that hard all day.

    10. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by sjames · · Score: 1

      She would have to watch several at the same time to manage it within that time period.

    11. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      There's nothing suspicious about that data usage at all, Mate.

      She was thinking of buying an Amazon Fire TV Stick and decided to read all of the reviews first.

    12. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by msauve · · Score: 1

      "full HD would be utterly useless and just a waste for everyone"

      I use an MHL adapter to connect my phone to a HD TV via HDMI, you insensitive clod.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, on a small mobile device, Amazon/netflix/etc will not send a full HD stream (3GB/h) but rather a smaller resolution stream suitable for the device (full HD would be utterly useless and just a waste for everyone) and at a small fraction of the full HD bitrate.

      That's disappointing, considering the number of 2k+ phones out there...

  22. Link to more complete source story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why not link to the source article instead of a summary? It has a lot more detail on what supposedly happened.

  23. How to get your friend to yell at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step One: Send them a link to www.brachs.com/halloween-products/ with an appropriately click-baity note attached.
    Step Two: Listen to them howl as they realize shitty modern website "design" just ate a significant part of their monthly bandwidth.

    1. Re:How to get your friend to yell at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just resend a long text message 500 times. Back in the days of pagers (remember those?) a coworker made the mistake of giving me his pager number. He got pages to call LGBT hotlines, Aids hotlines, etc.

  24. Throttling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Verizon should ask itself how this woman managed to download 569 GB of data in a few days without having her download speed throttled.

    It's a shame I'm not a lawyer. I'd gladly file a very nasty countersuit, pro bono, to teach these monopolies a lesson.

  25. Re:Verizon charged her a plenty? by jandrese · · Score: 2

    I see you aren't a Verizon customer. "This service is temporarily unavailable" means "We shut this down 5 years ago but never told anybody, not even our CSRs." It's all designed to run you around in circles until you give up and just pay the bill.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  26. Re:Verizon charged her a plenty? by whipslash · · Score: 1
  27. Credit Limits by denbesten · · Score: 1

    I have long wanted to be able to place a credit limit on my phone such that the phone company will cut me off when I have reached my limit. Much like the credit card companies do.

    I skirt the issue by using a provider that pretends to offer unlimited voice and data for a fixed monthly cost, but there are still issues of roaming, cramming and the like.

    1. Re:Credit Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon does this, it's called "safety mode". They charge for it, because they are not incentivized to keep people from racking up overages.

    2. Re:Credit Limits by gspira · · Score: 1

      Like Pay as You Go?

    3. Re:Credit Limits by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Ting allows you to do this. Independently for voice/text/data. You can get a phone that rides either sprint or tmobile depending on the coverage in the area. If you get a nexus, you can get a sim for both providers and switch when necessary (extra 6 per month). Each sim will have it's own number and be treated as a different phone on Ting.

      I used to do this, and forwarded a google voice number to both SIM numbers so I could get calls no matter what network I was on.

      Tings customer service is great too.

      My girlfriend is still on Ting, I am currently testing out project fi from Google. I like the autoswitching to a degree (I was wearing out my SIM contacts switching networks when I needed data). I am not sure however if Fi lets you set a hard cap.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  28. Impossible by Mephistophocles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility. Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.

    --
    Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    1. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. I'd take that bet. For a claim amount approaching $10,000, Verizon can have one of their attorneys (or a contract firm) place a notice of appearance in. And guess what - your small claim just because a district court case. Unless you like losing, you then must retain your own lawyer. Good luck finding one that can win a case like that who will take a case like that on contingency. (Or, in other words, a fast way to get you to drop your suit which costs you time to make filings and costs Verizon about $500 max in expenses.)

    2. Re:Impossible by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      works on a contingency basis? no, money down!

    3. Re:Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ Meant to say, "became a district court case." Even better: Your contract with Verizon almost certainly says you'll go before Arbitration instead of being able to sue. So you'll go to arbitration (aka the corporation's friend,) instead. And rather than a notice to appear, the smarter strategy would be to point out that the contract you signed says it will be interpreted by Delaware (or some other state's) laws and that shall be the jurisdiction of interpretation. So the lawyer for $200 files a motion of incorrect jurisdiction, instead. And good luck when the case is remanded to a district court in Delaware, instead.

    4. Re:Impossible by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility.

      Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.

      Wow! That's like seven exploding Samsung Galaxy 7's worth of data!

      --
      ~X~
  29. What has that to do with DSLR cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slo? New? Da?

  30. 70GB in one day on a phone seems unlikey by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    70GB in one day on a phone seems unlikely. So did they mess up the counting? added some other users phones to their account?

  31. Re:Rape Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marf

  32. Personal hotspot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She might have left the personal hotspot exposed. Weak password, or gave it to someone to use once.

    An unscrupulous person might use it to stream. Best to shut it off when not needed.

  33. You know Verizon can't do basic math by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
  34. Pfft. $9100 bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is silly. This degree of activity on this sort of plan should have raised a (red) flag well before this amount in charges were accrued. It was probably nothing more than some dodgy app on her phone run riot.

  35. 569gb ?! by meerling · · Score: 2

    So, does anybody want to run the numbers on 569 gigabytes on a cell phone over "just a few days" ?
    How does that even compare to the max rate of download those things are even capable of?
    Is it based on around the clock downloading which we know isn't reasonable either, especially if there are periods when she wasn't at home or where she could be charging the phone as we know downloading eats up battery at a pretty decent clip.
    This looks extremely questionable to me, and potentially impossible to achieve. (Of course somebody with more specific information could do the calculations I can't, and am probably too lazy to do today anyway.)

    1. Re:569gb ?! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, does anybody want to run the numbers on 569 gigabytes on a cell phone over "just a few days" ?
      How does that even compare to the max rate of download those things are even capable of?

      In general some would call that a weak effort

  36. Verizon dropped most of the charges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/verizon_agrees_to_drop_florida_1.html

    Verizon dropped most of the charges.

    They did steal over $600 from the poor woman.

  37. Probably wifi assist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, dam wifi assist feature

  38. Re:Verizon charged her a plenty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Verizon customer, and this is bullshit. Their site works fine. And even if it didn't, a quick call will get you the info you need. That the supposed customer in the article switched to T-Mobile after seeing that message is rather fishy.

  39. I doubt anyone will need to sue anyone else by blibbo · · Score: 1

    ... I'm not from a country where suing people is a common occurrence but usually the way you fix is through the beauracracy. With a few sensible steps to shortcut the process.

    You call/email/talk to people until you find someone that has any measure of power, and escalate to management as necessary.

    If you have a bill that is "signed" by the manager of some collections department etc of the company (even though it would have been processed by some underling), you politely request that person's phone number and establish a one-to-one dialog, explaining calmly that it's clearly a mistake and that you expect the charges to be reversed and a full explanation of what has happened.

    If you have a name of someone who is, or should be, responsible within the company, you can often infer an email address. Firstname.lastname@companyname.com or some such. If you have one person's email, you can infer another's.

    Phone and-or email at least weekly. Ideally keep a polite, calm,reasonable email paper trail, copy in anyone you've talked to along the way. Don't get angry but do insist that it's clearly a mistake, that you expect someone to take responsibility and that you expect the charges to be reversed.

    The biggest surprise, as with so many news stories, is that it became a news story at all. If you are a squeaky enough wheel, you basically become someone's full-time job to figure out some kind of solution.

  40. Re: Verizon charged her a plenty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just dialed #data and got a link to a website that gave me the same error message descirbed in the article.

  41. /. deleted my post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'll say it again. This lady proves that Karma does exist.

  42. Re: Verizon charged her a plenty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I just went to the website, viewed the bill for the billing cycle that ended 9/12, viewed usage by line, and saw how the data usage was broken down for each of the 7 phones on my account. It works fine.

  43. What about talking to Verizon by jbolden · · Score: 0

    Verizon in my experience is pretty reasonable. They do however make mistakes. Work with customer service. As for the $600 fee there is no $600 fee for ending a contract early that means they leant her money on a phone that she now has to repay plus possibly a much smaller penalty. This sounds like a person who acted impulsively. Most of the comments above talking about suing. Suing requires first acting in good faith. So she needs to act in good faith and in the very least talk to them.

  44. Re:Verizon charged her a plenty? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    I have gotten that when trying to pay my phone bill. So I go away, forget about it for some days, and get charged a late fee.

    That "service is temporarily unavailable" message earns them extra cash, so why would anybody be surprised that they don't fix it?

  45. I'm always skeptical of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these stories always bring up more skepticism than fact. Is the lady single, does she have kids? Could it be she had some app sucking data down? Verizon is my carrier and they should have been able to tell her what kind of data and from what source. I can access this from the Verizon web site or app. Also I find it sketchy that rather then work with Verizon on this she just moves to another carrier? I think some clarification is in order before condemning Verizon here.

  46. Where were the notifications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon always sends me notifications through text or email when I close in on my data cap? Did this person ignore them?

  47. This goes to show... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Would you not think that a large technology company could, and would, have a service flagged in the event that such an unusual activity was occurring on a line, and at least notify/warn a customer?!
    It makes one think that Verizon is taking advantage of an error in a system; focusing on revenue only.

    This reinforces my perception of Verizon as being an 800 pound monopolizing gorilla.

    I have had endless experiences with Verizon's bureaucratic nightmares. They make it way too difficult to get anything done.
    Especially compared to any other competitor.
    For example, if you do not have Call Forwarding available on your land lines (which all other carriers include in their pkgs), it takes Verizon "up to 48 hours" to invoke a Call Forward request (where other carriers effect a Call Forward request virtually immediately - regardless of ANY other service request that may be pending). It has actually take me over 36 hours to see my requests fulfilled. Too late to meet my needs!

    I see things like this consistently with Verizon. Their po;licies and structure are still antiquated, cumbersome, and costly.
    Why even bother with Verizon?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  48. Verizon has dropped the bill by donak · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...