No comments on the freakin' END OF LIFE as we know it? We're about one line of code away from push technology that load my wireless with an AD everytime I walk past Starbucks. Can you imagine what happens when you stroll down 42nd St. or Main St., Karachi?
I won't answer the phone, email, or even a knock at the door anymore. It's purely self-defense against UCE, junk faxes, telemarketing, and scam charity solicitations. I only accept email from a white list of family members and close associates, same with phone numbers, and faces at my door.
Seriously. I don't use email for work, anymore, and I've always refused to carry a pager or a cell (except for outbound calls).
Firing up an email client in 1989 was like being asked to read drafts of a peer-reviewed journal, with a little watercooler chat thrown in; firing up an email client in 2007 is like fending off a horde of squeegee kids. Other channels are equally, if not more, appalling. I blame debt collectors and fraudsters, partly; service providers, partly; anarcho-capitalism, partly.
In an uncouth world, splendid isolation has charms.
Crashed all the machines in your school and ran an infinite net send loop, didya? Ha, ha. Did you consider just unplugging the machines and pasting a picture of a Windows desktop over top each monitor?
They got a bill for $1000 for a service they could've had for $10. It's simply unconscionable for Verizon to charge one customer 100x what another pays for the identical service.
Personal responsibility and teens? You haven't got kids, LOL. And I bet there's a contract, so they can't even cancel the service.
But more to the point, isn't Verizon indulging in a predatory and deceptive practice here? They know better than their customers which services and situations can result in massive overages, but hide the more extravagant charges in the nooks and crannies of the EULA. How can companies blithely charge 5-10 times normal rates on service overages. Why would an experienced, informed person agree to pay such rates? Only through error or inattention, I suspect. These rates therefore "shock the conscience", in the legal sense, or certainly push the envelope, and should be limited by regulation to a reasonable multiple or otherwise limited liability. Where is the 30-day return for "buyers remorse" protection when a new service turns out to be a rip-off?
It's not just rates:
Take a recent case of consumer liability arising from cellphone theft: a Canadian women fought a $14,000 bill from Rogers Wireless, after her son's phone was stolen. It turns out, too, that Rogers easily flagged the suspicous activity, but intentionally let the bill run. She exposed the malfeasance after a little investigative journalism which is all well documented (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA M.20051219.wxcellphone19/BNStory/National/). It all happened in 3 weeks while she was on vacation. Can't see yourself there? Think again.
One-sided contracts, hidden charges, deceptives sales come-on's. Do we put it all on the consumer? Better consumer protection laws from governments that aren't in bed with the bastards might help. We now have multiple devices in our homes and on our persons over which we exercise "effective control" which shifts the burden of proof to the consumer, exposing us to nearly unlimited liability. It's insane.
Personally. I use prepaid for everything possible now. I read EULAs and aggressively protect my rights. But I really don't think it's reasonable to expect this kind of due diligence from consumers. The average American reads at a grade 8-9 level, and 1 in 5 read at a below grade 6 level.
Slashdot Mirror
No comments on the freakin' END OF LIFE as we know it? We're about one line of code away from push technology that load my wireless with an AD everytime I walk past Starbucks. Can you imagine what happens when you stroll down 42nd St. or Main St., Karachi?
I won't answer the phone, email, or even a knock at the door anymore. It's purely self-defense against UCE, junk faxes, telemarketing, and scam charity solicitations. I only accept email from a white list of family members and close associates, same with phone numbers, and faces at my door.
Seriously. I don't use email for work, anymore, and I've always refused to carry a pager or a cell (except for outbound calls).
Firing up an email client in 1989 was like being asked to read drafts of a peer-reviewed journal, with a little watercooler chat thrown in; firing up an email client in 2007 is like fending off a horde of squeegee kids. Other channels are equally, if not more, appalling. I blame debt collectors and fraudsters, partly; service providers, partly; anarcho-capitalism, partly.
In an uncouth world, splendid isolation has charms.
Sheesh. Script kiddies.
3rd world is *so* gonna kick your ass, America.
Only if demand is perfectly inelastic, as in a monopoly. At the other end, there's a minimal profit price point for a commodity.
They got a bill for $1000 for a service they could've had for $10. It's simply unconscionable for Verizon to charge one customer 100x what another pays for the identical service.
But more to the point, isn't Verizon indulging in a predatory and deceptive practice here? They know better than their customers which services and situations can result in massive overages, but hide the more extravagant charges in the nooks and crannies of the EULA. How can companies blithely charge 5-10 times normal rates on service overages. Why would an experienced, informed person agree to pay such rates? Only through error or inattention, I suspect. These rates therefore "shock the conscience", in the legal sense, or certainly push the envelope, and should be limited by regulation to a reasonable multiple or otherwise limited liability. Where is the 30-day return for "buyers remorse" protection when a new service turns out to be a rip-off?
It's not just rates:
Take a recent case of consumer liability arising from cellphone theft: a Canadian women fought a $14,000 bill from Rogers Wireless, after her son's phone was stolen. It turns out, too, that Rogers easily flagged the suspicous activity, but intentionally let the bill run. She exposed the malfeasance after a little investigative journalism which is all well documented (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA M.20051219.wxcellphone19/BNStory/National/). It all happened in 3 weeks while she was on vacation. Can't see yourself there? Think again.
One-sided contracts, hidden charges, deceptives sales come-on's. Do we put it all on the consumer? Better consumer protection laws from governments that aren't in bed with the bastards might help. We now have multiple devices in our homes and on our persons over which we exercise "effective control" which shifts the burden of proof to the consumer, exposing us to nearly unlimited liability. It's insane.
Personally. I use prepaid for everything possible now. I read EULAs and aggressively protect my rights. But I really don't think it's reasonable to expect this kind of due diligence from consumers. The average American reads at a grade 8-9 level, and 1 in 5 read at a below grade 6 level.
My 2c.