Verizion-Moto Blues...solved...

[spligutherism]

Bring da band, on down..behind me..boyz & girlz...

..inflate ya shoes.....I'll wait.....ready...?

My boss updates his Verizon contract, gets his Razr HD
phone. Wants to get them for some of (us) employees
too. Nice thing, good camera, great case/screen..but.

Can't USB it to the PCs. Old Razr had no problems.

He's bullshit, when J gets upset, he does that sort of thing,
he's been here in this group before, you all know..

2+ days with Motorola, up to '3rd level' tech support,
and dealing with Verizion, no results..well, now we
know why. Sad, and sort of laughable. We got to delay
days of work, only because we needed to show pix on this
phone to clients at 'dinner'. Should be simple, drag n drop..

Right..? Manual says it's sooooo easy..always has been...

Net search shows that with 'certain' providers, said 'certain'
phones have this feature dis-abled. No shit, Google it..

Seems they want you to 'Cloud' everything to transfer files..

..sorry, what files we need to t/fer are private, and our clients
cannot (let alone us) risk it being uploaded to some 'cloud'
somewhere. The manual says we can d/drop. L/3 tech
support has no idea...but wait..I find a guy in CA who knows.

'Jerry' is insane, thinks Apple is the devil, hates Google,
and in many ways, I'm glad he's 3k miles away from me, if
he hated me. Send J gigs of data. Thinks dogs flew space ships

Yet he said..and solved our problem big time, and made us look
like moronies. Write this down, all you who forum about it.

Take the fucking card out of the phone, insert it into a $5 card
2 USB adapter, and do what has to be done. Insert card back
into phone. Duh? Just make sure power is off, etc. BINGO !

Solves all the problems. Funny, '3rd level' tech had no clue either.

Took 15 mins to do what otherwise took 2 days of online chat
phone, whatever tech support that '3rd level' tech support will
call J Monday to see if all is ok, and they will be embarrassed 2.

Verizion wanted to replace the phone, Moto wanted to too.

Yet now we know the REAL story..

Seems the 'Cloud' people want you to use THEIR service.

..not your USB cable.. And we tried it on 4 diff PCs...

CAN ANY OF YOU BELIEVE THIS ???

Net search by me shows others found out the about the
Cloud connection, but if said provider has THEIR name on
the manual, let alone the PAGE that has said instructions
to USB to a PC, they should back up their cakehole.

Talking to said provider, my boss was told that they do not
support said features, because it's not needed for the service,
that t/fer of files is "..your problem.." . Yet we can 'Cloud' them.

All is fine now, we just have extra cards to insert wherever
we need, when we need them. Sure, USB t/fer would of
been so much easier, but here is the bottom line:

Changing cards is SOOOOOO much better then dealing with the
garbage level of tech support for untold hours who have no clue
about it, yet when ya reach '2/3rd' level supervisor tech, at least
they fucking try. Yet they are mute or uninformed...or both.

It's borderline blackmail...

Yet hey, now we can do our work... NOW LET'S DANCE !!!


Mike Olson

(hacking J's PC...hehehehe)





There's a new sensation

A fabulous creation

A danceable solution

To teenage revolution

Do the Strand, love
When you feel love
It's the new way
That's why we say
Do the Strand

Do it on the tables
Quaglino's place
Or Mabel's

Slow and gentle
Sentimental
All styles served here
Louis Seize he prefer
Laissez-faire
Le Strand

Tired of the tango
Fed up with fandango

Dance on moonbeams
Slide on rainbows
In furs or blue jeans
You know, what 'eye' mean
Do the Strand

...oh....

Had your fill of Quadrilles
The Madison's a cheap thrill
Bored with the Beguine
The samba isn't your scene

They're playing our tune
By the pale moon
We're incognito
Down the Lido
And we like the Strand

Arabs at oasis
Eskimos
And Chinese

If you feel blue
Look through who's who
See La Goulue
And Nijinsky
Do the Strandsky

Weary of the Waltz...
And mashed potato schmaltz

Rhododendron
Is a nice flower
Evergreenin'
It lasts forever
But it can't beat
Strand power

The Sphynx
And Mona Lisa
Lolita
And Guernica
Did the (drum)

Strand

[Justin]

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:04:39 -0400]:
> In article <sesim8lsa68m6gent...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

> wrote:
>
>> Take the fucking card out of the phone, insert it into a $5 card
>> 2 USB adapter, and do what has to be done. Insert card back
>> into phone. Duh? Just make sure power is off, etc. BINGO !
>

> you're a fucking idiot.
>
> Dealing with you on this would be like trying, remotely, to help a
> monkey fly a 747 across the country.

Especially if he sounded as stupid over the phone or in person
as he did in this post. Get to the point already.

[spligutherism]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:19:16 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>> you're a fucking idiot.

So my boss is a f/i because he expected the device to work
as designed, except it was crippled because of 'cloud'..

IF you think that..YOU are a sucker.. Follow everything they
feed you. I mean, no shit, we should of done that, but it was a
time issue, I'm talking hours, and said device should of done what
it SAYS IN THE MANUAL it does. It didn't. WHY DIN'T IT DO IT?

..because said provider want's us to 'cloud' it. Fuck them.

What is even worse, is that getting to level '3' tech support
didn't have the know how/balls to tell him to do the thing
in the 1st place. He's a boss, not a tech. Sure, he's no idiot,
but SAID DEVICE SHOULD OF WORKED AS DESIGNED AND
DESCRIBED IN SAID MANUAL, AND THE ONLY REASON IT DID
NOT WAS BECAUSE SAID PROVIDER WANT'S US TO 'CLOUD'.

THEY MADE THE DEVICE NOT DO WHAT IT IS MADE TO DO..

Not that he couldn't reach Facebook, or any of the other apps on
the thing. SIMPLE FILE TRANSFER THAT 4 MACHINES DID THAT
MORNING ON THE OLD RAZR. But NO..CLOUD... WHY should he
have to use 'cloud' to transfer private data to said device?

NOT pix of ya cat pissing in the litter box. Priorty data that
we are legal bound not to share ANYWHERE with ANYBODY..

..maybe you don't play in that ball park & don't get that drift..

And the asswipes he had to deal with had no clue either. ARE
THEY ALSO FUCKING IDIOTS? *IF* they told him to do that,
cool. But no. They told him they'd replace the phone, they
thought it was broken. Moto did too. Upper level supv people.

Verizon went out of the way to make sure a replacement HD
was available in his home town, Sat morn. THEY thought
the phone was "..broken..". 3rd lev Moto tech said they also
would replace the phone...all free... ARE THEY THAT STUPID
OR DO THEY JUST WANT TO HIDE REALITY FROM YOU RUBES?

THEY PLAYED HIM. IF they had mentioned the obv, it would
of ended quickly..BUT THEY ALSO EITHER HAD NO CLUE, &/OR
COULD/WOULD NOT TELL HIM THE CURE. Defend that...

Ya can't blame the user when the provider cripples the device,
and demands you to to play their game, their way, while they
ship said device, and sign ya up for another 2 year hitch, yet
even THEY can't tell ya (or won't tell you) how to side step
the crippled disabled featured listed on page x with provider's
name on the top of the page. Are you that lame of a sheep?

>> Dealing with you on this would be like trying, remotely, to help a
>> monkey fly a 747 across the country.

Sorry, this is the big time, not a dress up, no time for fuck ups
or delays. Items we pay $xxx for & sign up for years *BETTER*
do what they say, and the lame ass excuse we can use 'cloud'
isn't a option in the big time. It might be for ya cat litter box
pix, but legal papers now a days even state that said data:

"..CAN NOT BE SHARED ONLINE IN ANY WAY SHAPE, OR FORM.."

>Especially if he sounded as stupid over the phone or in person
>as he did in this post. Get to the point already.

Sorry if you have no clue. Amazing, all the folks he talked to
also did not know why it didn't work as shipped. Yet:

Simple read into build # 9.8.1Q-62_VOW (etc) of 2/14/2k13
shows otherwise. As I said, this is the big time, we've been
to sea before. Maybe someday you will get to this level..

..without a x box, facebook, or youtube. The real world..

Mike Olson


I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
But hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said look it baby
you can't drive no more at night
you got a crack in ya cylinder head
..and a short is in ya lights

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said..face it baby..
you know it's time to go.
I won't write you no letter gal..
IF you drive real slow.

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

You know, I hate to see it, baby..
..that evening sun go down.
Ain't it awesome lonesome..
..yeah, you going around..

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

[Justin]

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:13:11 -0400]:
> In article <tf9jm8lbmm1klthf8...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

> wrote:
>
>> >> Dealing with you on this would be like trying, remotely, to help a
>> >> monkey fly a 747 across the country.
>>
>> Sorry, this is the big time, not a dress up, no time for fuck ups
>> or delays. Items we pay $xxx for & sign up for years *BETTER*
>> do what they say,
>

> why the FUCK would you spend that kind of money and commit to it "for
> years"?
>
> That's insanity to begin with.

You don't commit to anything before you can make sure it does what you need.

[spligutherism]

>>>why the FUCK would you spend that kind of money and commit to it "for
>>>years"?

>>no, because he failed to communicate the simplest facts to anyone.

>You don't commit to anything before you can make sure it does what you need.

1: contract is up for re-new..'user' re-news it.
2: new contract is 2 yrs....fee to cop out...
3: phone cost $xxx..paid to provider, not manf..
4: phone is made to do said thing, manual says it can
and gives instructions how to do it. Page #x. Phone
includes cord to do such thing..out of said box.
5: manf goes thru hoops to fix the 'problem', to the point
of thinking phone is 'broken'. HOURS of troubleshoot.
6: provider's name is on said manual...
7: 'someone' disables' said features to FORCE
said new 2 yr user to use an 'outside' service.
8: both provider and phone manf fully understand
the issue, yet either cannot, or will not, state the
obv correction to bypass #7, shut user up, make happy.
9: using outside service is not a legal option...
...nor should HAVE to be forced on 'user'...
10: Manf & provider offer to replace said phone with no clue
about why, up to 3rd level tech support, or are unwilling
to explain the reality of WHY it doesn't work..
11: Checking into VERY current (2/13) phone code, proves #7..
12: 'user' is at fault over all this ????

Is your ave 'user' supposed to know how to bypass #7, when
the manual says it should not be so, lev3 tech also for hours
says it should, test on 4 machines, under 3 diff op systems,
even a clean install (done just to see if the PCs were at fault)
gets the same results, & checking the phone code proves #7.?

...give me a fucking break...

Funny, both Moto and Verizion FULLY understand the problem, even with
Moto using 'rescue' to see his PC. THEY still think the phone is bad.

So he opened a 'cloud' account..wow..it works... And he canceled
the account..just wanted to know the facts. Funny about the truth.

As J always says: "..learn, or be sold to..."

He's happy with Verizion's service otherwise, yet now knows
what has to be done to do the job correctly, and not be forced
to play someone else's game without a option. THAT sucks..

But you kiddies just play in ya faceboik/youboob/clown world..

Let them control you..2 yrs at a time..

In the real world, that is not a legal option.

Mike Olson








Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time !
Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time !
You can waste your time on the other rides..
This is the nearest to being alive !
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death..

You can go with the crazy people in the Crooked House
You can fly away on the Rocket, or spin in the Mouse
The Tunnel Of Love might amuse you...
Noah's Ark might confuse you..
But let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

On the Wall Of Death all the world is far from me !
On the Wall Of Death it's the nearest to being free !

Well you're going nowhere when you ride on the Carousel
And maybe you're strong, but what's the good of ringing a bell
The Switchback will make you crazy. Beware of the bearded lady
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

Let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
Oh let me ride on the Wall Of Death one more time
You can waste your time on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death
Let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death
Oh let me take my chances on the Wall Of Death

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 4/13/2013 8:12 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <tf9jm8lbmm1klthf8...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

> wrote:
>
>>>> you're a fucking idiot.
>>
>> So my boss is a f/i because he expected the device to work
>> as designed, except it was crippled because of 'cloud'..
>

> no, because he failed to communicate the simplest facts to anyone.
>

Your answer is not likely to solve the original poster's problem
or to enlighten or anyone else!

If you can't help, you could at least stop wasting everyone's time!

[spligutherism]

>If you have read this thread and have no idea how my answer was likely
>to solve his problem, then it's just as well you don't have a smartphone
>that takes a memory card.

What has happened Monday morning?:

1: both provider and manf still claimed the phone is broken
2: provider has NOT given replacement info as promised
3: 3rd lev tech called user saying how sorry he was he
DIDN'T THINK OF CHANGING THE CARD DAYS AGO !!!
4: ALL levels of support never asked:
"did you try just loading the card"
5: this user was told to REMOVE card from broken phone
during trouble shoot HOURS, as phone might be 'broken'.
6: Monday, both provider and manf admitted that Google has
disabled the mass storage on phones after said 2/13 build
in many phones. One said it was a 'test run'..
7: 'user' is then Google's g/pig against his will/choice.
8: #7 cost user time and money and business by outright lies.
9: provider claims they will ship new phone with feature
enabled within 72 hours. user is holding his breath.
10: #9 will not make up for #8...

SOOOO, 'elmo'. Tell me. If during hours of t/shooting, while
high level tech support tells you for DAYS the phone is broken,
and refuses to tell you the feature is disabled, or doesn't even
know..who is the stupid one here? My boss can change a card,
yet was told phone is broken, to the point of being promised
extra fast local in town replacement (which never happened).

1st lev tech should of asked if he tried loading the card, instead of
telling him the device is 'broken'.. 4 2 days. 2nd lev should of also
asked, instead of telling him to remove the card since the device
is 'broken'. 3rd lev went thru hoops to t/shoot said 'broken' phone
and were the only people who seemed to give a shit anyway.

WHY would they all do this..? Because THEY also either thought
the phone was broken, or went thru this big big bullshit game
to hid the fact said feature (they now admit) is Googled that way.

..and all the above cost user time and $$$$$ and business...

..and you blame the user... HA !

Mike Olson

[sms]

On 4/13/2013 12:20 PM, Splig Utherism wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:19:16 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>> you're a fucking idiot.
>
> So my boss is a f/i because he expected the device to work
> as designed, except it was crippled because of 'cloud'..

Verizon has been disabling the transfer of photos and ringtones for a
long time. On the older, dumb phones, you could edit some settings and
re-enable what Verizon disabled.

However, in this case, it is not something that Verizon or Motorola did,
so your boss can't blame Motorola or Verizon (other than the fact that
the support people should have known the reason he could not do what he
wanted to do). The real problem is this: Google removed the USB Mass
Storage Mode option from Jelly Bean.

See
<http://www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-razr-m/231820-usb-mass-storage-mode-gone-after-jb-update.html>
and <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x62p9fj3A5Q>

"If you have a Jelly Bean phone, or if you upgraded to Jelly Bean,
you're going to lose mass storage mode...you'll have to yank the SD card
out, attach it directly to the computer in order to get that same benefit."

It's a real pain in the butt. You don't want to be constantly moving
memory cards around.

If you can downgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich you can get the functionality
back.

As to why Google did this, it's probably because they desperately want
to move people to the cloud and NOT have them connecting their Android
devices directly to a computer. You're not going to be seeing
advertising on your phone if you're connected directly to the computer.
If you have a Google Nexus 4 phone, or Google Nexus 7 or Nexus 10
tablet, there is no SD card at all, so losing Mass Storage Mode is even
more of a pain.

Google is slowly locking down Android just like Apple has locked down
iOS. Google has also been removing apps from the app store that allow
Android users to do things on their devices that are not to Google's liking.

[spligutherism]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:36:50 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Verizon has been disabling the transfer of photos and ringtones for a
>long time. On the older, dumb phones, you could edit some settings and
>re-enable what Verizon disabled.

We found this out..yet his old Razr had no problems out of the box..

>However, in this case, it is not something that Verizon or Motorola did,
>so your boss can't blame Motorola or Verizon (other than the fact that
>the support people should have known the reason he could not do what he
>wanted to do). The real problem is this: Google removed the USB Mass
>Storage Mode option from Jelly Bean.

EXACTLY! Yet both Moto and Verizion played him for days without
telling him the simple fix..oh no, the phone was 'broken'. *THAT*
is what is the crime here. They either didn't know, which is stupid,
or played a 2 (now going on 6) day game bullshitting him over what
they KNEW, yet refused to tell him till he told THEM. *HE* had to
point it out before they admitted it. And verizion is the place the
2yr contract $$ goes to..where the $$ paid for the phone goes to,
who has their name on the manual that tells you how to do what
the device is disabled from doing. *THEY* are at fault 1st in line.

Moto 3rd lev folks went thru hoops, 'rescue', many..many hours of
trying to make the m/storage work. And the guy was great, he
did try, J believes he wasn't b/s'ing him. And that is sad. IF at
that lev, they don't 'know'..what good is their tech support?

If after all this crap, is said user supposed to be libel to go to
some forum to find out the fix, that later the manf/provider
can claim is '3rd party' when the manf/provider forces the user
to use a 3rd party to do what the manual shipped with the device
says they can do otherwise, and the manf/provider spends DAYS
trying to make the 'manual' thing work?

>It's a real pain in the butt. You don't want to be constantly moving
>memory cards around.

If we were told all that had to be done was remove a card, instead
of being bullshit'd the phone was 'broken', we would of GLADLY
done it. It's no big deal. But WE WERE PLAYED LIKE FOOLS FOR
DAYS AND LOST $$$$$$$ AND TIME. In fact, to be blunt, we find
it easy for each needed employee to have a few 64gig cards and
just hand them to who needs them instead of having to stop work
on x PC to transfer files. "..here's ya card..here's ya blank.."

..let alone 'cloud' anything..even if it was legal to do...

>If you can downgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich you can get the functionality
>back.

Moto offered to down grade the phone..so they KNEW the issue..

>As to why Google did this, it's probably because they desperately want
>to move people to the cloud and NOT have them connecting their Android
>devices directly to a computer. You're not going to be seeing
>advertising on your phone if you're connected directly to the computer.

So we are forced to use the device against how it is designed, how the
manual shipped with it tells us to do it, how the enclosed cord can be
used to do the above, and how DAYS of tech support from all sides
have NO IDEA why said above doesn't work, because Google wants to
force me to see their ads..and we are FORCED to sign up for a 2 yr
contract, and PAY $XXX FOR THE DEVICE..? Extortion...

>If you have a Google Nexus 4 phone, or Google Nexus 7 or Nexus 10
>tablet, there is no SD card at all, so losing Mass Storage Mode is even
>more of a pain.

And we would not of chosen said phone, we need to have device in hand
to show data to clients away from a PC, and cannot 'clown' to a 3rd
party, legal wise. All the info we were 'sold' to renew the contract
said we could. LIES..BS..game playing..plain and simple.

>Google is slowly locking down Android just like Apple has locked down
>iOS. Google has also been removing apps from the app store that allow
>Android users to do things on their devices that are not to Google's liking.

WHY should Google control our life, make the device not do what
it says it can do out of the box? Who gives them the right?

I wouldn't touch an ipuke. I'd rather dump coins in a pay phone.

Thanks for the sane response...




Mike Olson





*> SENT FROM CELL MACNAMB DOCK6# AKQL*^*L7NMJKAAYJ&*HM <*
*> DATE REPLY MODEFINE GIGANEWS 27655##TYU76UJS-ALOMMG<*

[sms]

On 4/16/2013 3:43 AM, Splig Utherism wrote:

> EXACTLY! Yet both Moto and Verizion played him for days without
> telling him the simple fix..oh no, the phone was 'broken'. *THAT*
> is what is the crime here. They either didn't know, which is stupid,
> or played a 2 (now going on 6) day game bullshitting him over what
> they KNEW, yet refused to tell him till he told THEM.

I would be willing to be that neither Verizon nor Motorola customer
support people are well-trained enough to know that Google decontented
Android in this way when the OS rolled from ICS to JB.

> So we are forced to use the device against how it is designed, how the
> manual shipped with it tells us to do it, how the enclosed cord can be
> used to do the above, and how DAYS of tech support from all sides
> have NO IDEA why said above doesn't work, because Google wants to
> force me to see their ads..and we are FORCED to sign up for a 2 yr
> contract, and PAY $XXX FOR THE DEVICE..? Extortion...

Yes. If the manual mentioned mass storage mode then they failed to
update the manual when Google removed this functionality from the
operating system.

I'm glad I am now aware of this. I won't update the OS on my tablets to
JB, and I'll keep our phones on Gingerbread.

You might want to try this free app
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sand.airdroid&hl=en>.

[tlvp]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:51:10 -0700, sms wrote:

... Google decontented Android ... when the OS rolled from ICS to JB.

> I'm glad I am now aware of this. I won't update the OS on my tablets to
> JB, and I'll keep our phones on Gingerbread.

OK: for us illiterate/innumerate folks: what are the version numbers that
match ICS or JB respectively? Or: what AlphabetSoup name does 4.0.4 mean?

> You might want to try this free app
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sand.airdroid&hl=en>.

Thanks! Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[SMS]

On 4/16/2013 9:57 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:51:10 -0700, sms wrote:
>
> ... Google decontented Android ... when the OS rolled from ICS to JB.
>
>> I'm glad I am now aware of this. I won't update the OS on my tablets to
>> JB, and I'll keep our phones on Gingerbread.
>
> OK: for us illiterate/innumerate folks: what are the version numbers that
> match ICS or JB respectively? Or: what AlphabetSoup name does 4.0.4 mean?

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history>

2.1 Android 1.0 (API level 1)
2.2 Android 1.1 (API level 2)
2.3 Android 1.5 Cupcake (API level 3)
2.4 Android 1.6 Donut (API level 4)
2.5 Android 2.0 Eclair (API level 5)
2.6 Android 2.0.1 Eclair (API level 6)
2.7 Android 2.1 Eclair (API level 7)
2.8 Android 2.2�2.2.3 Froyo (API level 8)
2.9 Android 2.3�2.3.2 Gingerbread (API level 9)
2.10 Android 2.3.3�2.3.7 Gingerbread (API level 10)
2.11 Android 3.0 Honeycomb (API level 11)
2.12 Android 3.1 Honeycomb (API level 12)
2.13 Android 3.2 Honeycomb (API level 13)
2.14 Android 4.0�4.0.2 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 14)
2.15 Android 4.0.3�4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 15)
2.16 Android 4.1 Jelly Bean (API level 16)
2.17 Android 4.2 Jelly Bean (API level 17)

Personally I like Ice Cream Sandwich. It's before Google started
decontenting things.

Google is becoming more like Apple as they lock things down in an effort
to prevent apps that they don't want people using for one reason or another.

I've had to "sideload" several apps that Google has removed from the
Android Market/Play Store. At least they are still available elsewhere,
even without rooting.

[Justin]

SMS wrote on [Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:03:54 -0700]:
> I've had to "sideload" several apps that Google has removed from the
> Android Market/Play Store. At least they are still available elsewhere,
> even without rooting.

You mean like ones that go against the play store TOS?

[tlvp]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:03:54 -0700, SMS wrote:

> On 4/16/2013 9:57 AM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:51:10 -0700, sms wrote:
>>
>> ... Google decontented Android ... when the OS rolled from ICS to JB.
>>
>>> I'm glad I am now aware of this. I won't update the OS on my tablets to
>>> JB, and I'll keep our phones on Gingerbread.
>>
>> OK: for us illiterate/innumerate folks: what are the version numbers that
>> match ICS or JB respectively? Or: what AlphabetSoup name does 4.0.4 mean?
>
> From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history>
>
> 2.1 Android 1.0 (API level 1)
> 2.2 Android 1.1 (API level 2)
> 2.3 Android 1.5 Cupcake (API level 3)
> 2.4 Android 1.6 Donut (API level 4)
> 2.5 Android 2.0 Eclair (API level 5)
> 2.6 Android 2.0.1 Eclair (API level 6)
> 2.7 Android 2.1 Eclair (API level 7)

> 2.8 Android 2.2–2.2.3 Froyo (API level 8)
> 2.9 Android 2.3–2.3.2 Gingerbread (API level 9)
> 2.10 Android 2.3.3–2.3.7 Gingerbread (API level 10)

> 2.11 Android 3.0 Honeycomb (API level 11)
> 2.12 Android 3.1 Honeycomb (API level 12)
> 2.13 Android 3.2 Honeycomb (API level 13)

> 2.14 Android 4.0–4.0.2 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 14)
> 2.15 Android 4.0.3–4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 15)

> 2.16 Android 4.1 Jelly Bean (API level 16)
> 2.17 Android 4.2 Jelly Bean (API level 17)

> ...

Very, very helpful, sms: many thanks! (And I note with relief and gratitude
that the 4.0.4 I asked about marks the last of the ICS versions :-) .)

[AL]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> If you have a Google Nexus 4 phone, or Google Nexus 7 or Nexus 10
> tablet, there is no SD card at all, so losing Mass Storage Mode is
even
> more of a pain.

With my Nexus 7, my Windows 7 sync app WMatch no longer works, and
the safe disconnect icon no longer appears in the tray, but aside
from that I have had no trouble side loading anything I've tried
including over10GB of photos. What is it again that is a pain to do
on this thing?

BTW the free (or no extra cost if you prefer) WiFi at this hotel
(Coronado CA) works great... ;)

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:41:41 -0700, AL <AL4...@AL4345.com> wrote:

>BTW the free (or no extra cost if you prefer) WiFi at this hotel
>(Coronado CA) works great... ;)

No usable WiFi for me at my hotel in Dallas this week, but that's sort of
expected since I'm at the far end of the hall. OTOH, every room also has
*wired* Internet, and that works great for web and email.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:03:54 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 4/16/2013 9:57 AM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:51:10 -0700, sms wrote:
>>
>> ... Google decontented Android ... when the OS rolled from ICS to JB.
>>
>>> I'm glad I am now aware of this. I won't update the OS on my tablets to
>>> JB, and I'll keep our phones on Gingerbread.
>>
>> OK: for us illiterate/innumerate folks: what are the version numbers that
>> match ICS or JB respectively? Or: what AlphabetSoup name does 4.0.4 mean?
>
> From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history>
>
>2.1 Android 1.0 (API level 1)
>2.2 Android 1.1 (API level 2)
>2.3 Android 1.5 Cupcake (API level 3)
>2.4 Android 1.6 Donut (API level 4)
>2.5 Android 2.0 Eclair (API level 5)
>2.6 Android 2.0.1 Eclair (API level 6)
>2.7 Android 2.1 Eclair (API level 7)

>2.8 Android 2.2�2.2.3 Froyo (API level 8)
>2.9 Android 2.3�2.3.2 Gingerbread (API level 9)
>2.10 Android 2.3.3�2.3.7 Gingerbread (API level 10)

>2.11 Android 3.0 Honeycomb (API level 11)
>2.12 Android 3.1 Honeycomb (API level 12)
>2.13 Android 3.2 Honeycomb (API level 13)

>2.14 Android 4.0�4.0.2 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 14)
>2.15 Android 4.0.3�4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich (API level 15)

>2.16 Android 4.1 Jelly Bean (API level 16)
>2.17 Android 4.2 Jelly Bean (API level 17)
>
>Personally I like Ice Cream Sandwich. It's before Google started
>decontenting things.
>
>Google is becoming more like Apple as they lock things down in an effort
>to prevent apps that they don't want people using for one reason or another.
>
>I've had to "sideload" several apps that Google has removed from the
>Android Market/Play Store. At least they are still available elsewhere,
>even without rooting.

My Galaxy S3 has 4.1.2 and appears to have the mass storage mode that's
supposed to be missing. Is it safe to assume that Samsung has provided the
capability that Google has removed?

--
Paul Miner

[spligutherism]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:08:25 -0500, Paul Miner
<pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

>My Galaxy S3 has 4.1.2 and appears to have the mass storage mode that's
>supposed to be missing. Is it safe to assume that Samsung has provided the
>capability that Google has removed?

If that is the case, then Motorola allowed said feature to be
removed, bullshited the guy for days, cost him $, and then
blamed Google. ? Verizon claims to be shipping him a new
one with the feature enabled. Who do ya have to fuck to
get a phone that works as built, advertised, instructed to
in the manual, and not butchered by a 3rd party ONLY for
the 3rd party's personal gain? Think about that for a sec..

Never mind having to sign up for a 2 yr contract and PAY
for the phone too. Someone show us where this is fair.

I'ts like buying a car that has a radio that only get's one
station, that said station paid/slept with the car maker
to make the radio be stuck on. And with all the crap
being put in car radios today, don't think that's a stretch.

I wonder if you pay full list danger $ for a phone, without
a contract, is that feature enabled? Hmmmmmm?

In many ways, Moto was right..the phone IS broken. It
doesn't work out of the box as stated in the manual.

...Google broke it..for their own gain...

..and it seems Motorola and Verizon are Google's pimps..

Mike Olson







"..Cause if my eyes don't deceive me
There's something going wrong around here.."

[spligutherism]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:07:19 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>It's like you buying the car without doing even the most basic research
>into it, then finding out about it, then screaming and yelling that the
>world owes you "fairness" on your terms, despite you not doing a damn
>thing to research that expensive product in the first place.

You are the idiot here...I'll use smaller words...just for you..

-------------------

ITEM is built to do 'X'..

ITEM is shipped saying it can do 'X'..

MANUAL says the ITEM does 'X'..

ITEM is shipped with tools to do 'X'..

PROVIDER says the ITEM does 'X'..

MANUF says the ITEM does 'X"..

PROV & MANUF spends days trying to make ITEM do 'X'..

PROVIDER sells you device/service based on the above..

ITEM is crippled by 3rd party in embedded code NOT to do 'X'..

ITEM is sold to USER without that info being told to USER..

USER cannot change embedded code in any way..

PROVIDER commits you to a 2 yr contract based on the above..

PROVIDER charges $xxx for ITEM based on all of the above..

PROV & MANUF later admit they knew the truth all along..

-------------------

So ya ave user should do research to see if P & M are liars?

..and you think it's the USER'S fault ?

HOW much more research does one need to do?

Do you look at the sky, see it 'blue', yet need to do research
to see that your eyes might be lying to you? It's not on the
'user's' terms, it's on what is presented to the user, yet lied about.

IF the user was told it can't do 'X', then ok. But no, they are told,
for days, multi hours, costing the user $$$$$$$, that it can do 'X'.

PROVIDER & MANUF either lied or are impotent. And that fact
cost USER $$$$$. Yet you say the USER is to blame for all that?

>You really do have some fucked up sense of entitlement, don't you.

You really have your head up your ass..





Mike Olson

[Todd Allcock]

Most likely. OEMs like Samsung are free to differentiate their android
products with additional features. Some OEMs still add an Adobe Flash
player, though that's no longer officially supported by Adobe or Google.

[AL]

This hotel was wired (only) when I first started coming here years
ago, then had both, and now only WiFi. It's currently good enough for
quality streaming video but the place is only half full. I'll be back
again in early July when things get crowded and likely it'll be only
surfing quality then.

[AL]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:47:14 -0400, Splig Utherism wrote:

> Never mind having to sign up for a 2 yr contract

You don't *have* to sign up for a contract. Lots of prepaid plans
available, even from Verizon.

> and PAY for the phone too.

Course you didn't pay full price for the phone. It was subsidized by
Verizon and the contract assures Verizon it will get its money (+
profit) back.

> Someone show us where this is fair.

That part seems fair to me.

However a disabled USB port on a phone would be a deal breaker for
me. I'm all the time side loading stuff on my phone and having to
remove the case and card would be a royal PITA. I would take the
phone back for exchange and with your sad Verizon customer assistance
story I'll bet they would eat the restocking fee.

[sms]

It's a good idea to bring along a travel router in case a hotel has
wired-only and you have a device with wireless only. I ran into this in
China last year and I was glad that I had brought along a router
<http://www.cnetusa.com/product_CQR-980.php>.

[sms]

You can still sideload without USB Mass Storage Mode. The loss of USB
Mass Storage Mode means your computer doesn't see the phone as a disk
drive where you can use files while they are on the phone (just as you
could use files on a USB stick or SD card).

With MTP (Media Transfer Protocol) you can still transfer files to the
phone, and for sideloading it's sufficient since you would not want to
use apk files on your computer for anything anyway.

One thing I'll often do is to e-mail photos from the phone (or post them
on Facebook) while on the computer. Without USB Mass Storage Mode I'd
have to first transfer the photos to the computer which would be annoying.

[spligutherism]

Ya can't make this up..

J wakes up this morning. Seems Google/Moto updated
the firmware on his phone. He was told where to
place said files on the SD card, before this, and all
was working well. Gotta meet with a band to promote
their new CD before we press copies. Private data.

Data is on SD card. Can be played.. All is well..

..till this update..

Guess the firmware of 2/13 had errors. duh? So they,
without his permission, update his phone without telling
him..all of a sudden, files can be seen, but not accessed
by the phone..meeting in 3 hours. 2 hrs on MOTO 3rd
lev tech and 'rescue' with no clue why it's all of a sudden
not working. They tell him to '"try this" and it works.

Great. But it's the EXACT OPP of what he was told after
hours of 3rd level tech support before that made the phone
work then. USB still does not work, guy says Google is at
fault there. This has been going on a week now...

My point here is..write this down:

1: If you use Windows, you have the choice to update
your OS, let alone your PC BIOS/Firmware. Seems
Google can do this without telling you, and if it fucks
things up, well too bad, go online with tech support.

2: 3rd level tech support is what 1st (or at least 2nd) level
should have a clue about. Yet unless ya yell and bitch
and scream, they will tell you NOTHING, yet offer to
replace your phone. Verizion NOW has a new phone
in route FedEx to him. THAT would NOT solve problem.

3: USER owns phone, paid $ for it. USER should have the right
to decide if they want firmware changed, not a 3rd party.

4: #4 is esp important if it fucks up phone, and forces USER to
spend many more hours on the phone to correct said 3rd party's
decision to update firmware. Even if it's a fix to make things
better, OWNER OF THE DEVICE should have the choice.

---------------------

It's like all of a sudden, Mopar decided your new car should run with
cat piss additive. They show up in the middle of the night, while
you sleep, and change the car YOU OWN to run ONLY if you adapt to
the cat piss additive. You wake up, have to go to work, and car no
work. You have to tow the car to the dealer, spend $$ renting a car
to work, to find that Mopar (or Ford, whomever) did the dirty deed.

Next month, they change it to dog piss. And don't tell you ?

Verizion told J he can just go away, cancel everything.

Otherwise, play their unknown game or fuck off...

He's calling their corp office Thursday.

Ought to be a hoot. So far, all the BS time needed to sort
out the unknown 3rd party crap has cost him x times then the
list price of the device. SOMEONE will be held for that.


Mike Olson



On a side note, after talking to Verizon 3rd lev sup tech, and
thanking the guy for the help, sup says 2 J, and I quote:

"..it's ok, we're used to dealing with people from up north.."

.............................?????????..........................

Should he of said they are used to dealing with
blacks/women/chinks/teens..? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?

He might of, and I'd guess it was, a joke, but at that
level of contact, it's a big no-no. If he worked 4 us, he'd
be fired on the spot. Our company pays $$$$$$$$$$$$$
every month to Verizon..and that is how we are treated ?

..beyond laughable...

Even the Moto guy was speechless when J told him...

[AL]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:58:40 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> It's a good idea to bring along a travel router in case a hotel has
> wired-only and you have a device with wireless only. I ran into
this in
> China last year and I was glad that I had brought along a router

Probably good advice, especially for overseas. For my stateside only
travel that's not much of a problem. In my laptop/netbook only days
of course they had capabilities for anything. Now in my
tablet/smartphone era I could check the website or phone ahead to
find out what's available if it were that important. But even if
there were no WiFi ( is that possible... :) I could live on my
smartphone only (or use its hotspot) easily enough. No cell service?
Guess I'd have to go find a library... ;)

[AL]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:07:27 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> You can still sideload without USB Mass Storage Mode. The loss of
USB
> Mass Storage Mode means your computer doesn't see the phone as a
disk
> drive

Which is why my sync app WMatch no longer works and the safely remove
icon is gone when sideloading the Nexus 7.

> where you can use files while they are on the phone (just as you
> could use files on a USB stick or SD card).

Using using a PC to run files on a phone?? Isn't that a bit unusual?

> With MTP (Media Transfer Protocol) you can still transfer files to
the
> phone, and for sideloading it's sufficient since you would not want
to
> use apk files on your computer for anything anyway.

I use the computer to store and transfer apk files to my phone, N7,
and before that my Kindle Fire. Not everything is in the Google
store.

> One thing I'll often do is to e-mail photos from the phone (or post
them
> on Facebook) while on the computer. Without USB Mass Storage Mode
I'd
> have to first transfer the photos to the computer which would be
annoying.

Ah. I keep all my photos on all my devices (phone, N7, laptop, backup
drive). So that would not be a problem for me. However my file sync
program no longer works with the N7 so that is my new problem. Why
didn't you tell me God's tablet had this flaw?? ;)

[sms]

For Android tablets that have a USB port with OTG capability you could
also bring along a USB Ethernet adapter.

I have seen some no-name, el-cheapo, tablets, that have a wired Ethernet
port. Other than that, they're pretty bad with a resistive screen, no
Bluetooth, and no GPS.

One thing I didn't prepare for in China was that rather than an RJ45
jack they had a short RJ45 cable coming out of the wall with a plug on
the end. It was too short to even reach the desk where I had my netbook.
So I used the router along with my own Wi-Fi instead. So I guess it's
safe to say that unlike the U.S., Wi-Fi in China is not ubiquitous.

I was also glad that my ISP in the U.S. includes VPN service because you
really want to be careful about using unsecure networks. Also, I could
access Facebook if I used VPN, whereas Facebook is usually blocked in
China. At one place, someone saw me using Facebook in the lobby and
asked how I was doing it.

[sms]

I rooted the tablet and I am not allowing upgrades to Jelly Bean from
ICS. I did allow the upgrade once and I thought the tablet was bricked.
Finally got it back up and went back to ICS and will disabled automatic
updates.

[Justin]

sms wrote on [Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:12:25 -0700]:
> So I guess it's

> safe to say that like the U.S., Wi-Fi in China is not ubiquitous.

FTFY

[Justin]

The N7 comes with Jelly Bean, and only came with Jelly Bean.

[tlvp]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:47:14 -0400, Splig Utherism wrote:

> ... Who do ya have to fuck to

> get a phone that works as built, advertised, instructed to
> in the manual, and not butchered by a 3rd party ONLY for

> the 3rd party's personal gain? ...

Nobody. Just get your phone direct, not from that reviled "3rd party" :-) .

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:12:25 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>So I used the router along with my own Wi-Fi instead. So I guess it's
>safe to say that unlike the U.S., Wi-Fi in China is not ubiquitous.

Oh, John, you're incorrigible.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:03:26 -0600, Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com>
wrote:

>Most likely. OEMs like Samsung are free to differentiate their android
>products with additional features. Some OEMs still add an Adobe Flash
>player, though that's no longer officially supported by Adobe or Google.

Thanks, Todd. Makes sense.

--
Paul Miner

[spligutherism]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:48:16 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:47:14 -0400, Splig Utherism wrote:

>> ... Who do ya have to fuck to
>> get a phone that works as built, advertised, instructed to
>> in the manual, and not butchered by a 3rd party ONLY for
>> the 3rd party's personal gain? ...

>Nobody. Just get your phone direct, not from that reviled "3rd party" :-) .

He gets them directly from Verizon, the 3rd party
is Google, who seems to be able to control the phone

Mike Olson

[Justin]

The supplier of the OS can do anything it wants, really

[spligutherism]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>> He gets them directly from Verizon, the 3rd party
>> is Google, who seems to be able to control the phone

>The supplier of the OS can do anything it wants, really

So without your permission, they can turn yer device upside down?

That is what they did.

IT'S THE USER'S PHONE..

THEY PAID FOR IT..PAY VERIZON FOR SERVICE..

WHERE DOES GOOGLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THINGS ?

..without the users' ok..

Mike Olson

[Justin]

Splig Utherism wrote on [Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:48:27 -0400]:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>> He gets them directly from Verizon, the 3rd party
>>> is Google, who seems to be able to control the phone
>
>>The supplier of the OS can do anything it wants, really
>
> So without your permission, they can turn yer device upside down?
>
> That is what they did.
>
> IT'S THE USER'S PHONE..

Then you hack your phone and revert the update

> THEY PAID FOR IT..PAY VERIZON FOR SERVICE..
>
> WHERE DOES GOOGLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THINGS ?
>
> ..without the users' ok..

By you agreeing to the TOS

[AL]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:48:27 -0400, Splig Utherism wrote:

> IT'S THE USER'S PHONE..

You may own the phone but not necessarily the software it runs on.
It's kind of like I (don't really) "own" the Kindle ebooks I bought
and paid for. Welcome to the digital world...

[sms]

On 4/18/2013 7:48 AM, Splig Utherism wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>> He gets them directly from Verizon, the 3rd party
>>> is Google, who seems to be able to control the phone
>
>> The supplier of the OS can do anything it wants, really
>
> So without your permission, they can turn yer device upside down?

On my Verizon Android phones (and my Android tablets) they always ask
permission before pushing an OS update. The problem is that I suspect
that almost everyone allows the update because they have no idea that
there could possibly be negative aspects of the update. The Android
device will constantly be asking for permission to do the update unless
you take specific steps to stop it, and few people know how to to this.

[spligutherism]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:40:32 -0700, AL <AL4...@AL4345.com> wrote:

>You may own the phone but not necessarily the software it runs on.
>It's kind of like I (don't really) "own" the Kindle ebooks I bought
>and paid for. Welcome to the digital world...

So no matter how the device is sold/advertised/manual'd
shipped, they can do it THEIR way, and charge you for the
phone, bill you for 2 years..and you have to just bend over
and take it up the ass? Sheep to the slaughter..

Smart sheep know what Sheppard to follow..

If it was said that way from day one, and not BS'd for now a week
(J is even dealing with it as we speak) then you would have a point.

Verizion has refused to tell him the direct corp ph #, one guy says
he know it, the other says they don't..does anyone know the real
*DIRECT* corp office ph# for verizion? Seems their customers do
not have the right to know such info. Yet they cash the checks..

Sad thing is..they try..they make the impression that they are
trying, but it's all a joke. And it's costing $$$. And the TOS then
out weighs the manual/etc and how the device is designed, only
because Google wants $$$ to FORCE you to do it THEIR way..?

We don't plan on being Google/Verizon/Motorola's rubes..

Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:42:36 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On my Verizon Android phones (and my Android tablets) they always ask
>permission before pushing an OS update. The problem is that I suspect
>that almost everyone allows the update because they have no idea that
>there could possibly be negative aspects of the update. The Android
>device will constantly be asking for permission to do the update unless
>you take specific steps to stop it, and few people know how to to this.

..we were never asked..it was just done...

If we were asked..we would of declined...


Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

Ya can't make this up...

Ultra high tech support is looking into firmware and
speaking with Google people (so he is told) about it.

User talks hours yesterday with CA people doing this,
seems like progress, CA calls him a few times..then

4:30 pm, User is away from phone for 5 mins.

CA tries to call..User sees missed call, tries to call back.

USER reaches NC people who cannot contact CA people..

NC people (so they say) cannot call other divisions of Verizon
by phone...this is a PHONE COMPANY, btw..they have to email...

After 4 hrs on hold and speaking to sup level person...

NC tells USER he will get info in HIS email by morning..

..no email..

Call to NC says they will try again and get results by Monday !!!!!

BTW..the corp office ph# is: 212 395-1000 It's a voice mail..

Seems as a LLLOOONNNGGG term customer, USER can't call them
directly. Seems even verizion employees can't call each other..

...yeah...right...

This company is a joke or they just out right lie to the USERS...

updates soon...


Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

hey...dig this ...



Verizon Executive Contact Info

Bob Barish
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
robert...@verizon.com
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
ph: 908-559-1629
fx: 908-696-2156

William Barr
Executive Vice President & General Counsel
willia...@verizon.com
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
ph: 212-395-1689
??: 908-766-3836

Bruce Beausejour
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
State Regulatory, NY and New England
185 Franklin St, 13th Floor
bruce.p.b...@verizon.com
??: 607-743-2445 (Brenda?)
fx: 607-737-0648

Maura Breen
Senior Vice President
General Manager
New York Region Rm 3108
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
maura....@verizon.com
ph: 212-321-8170 (alana picks up)
fx: 212-964-4072

Mike Hassett
Senior Vice President
Business Solutions Group
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
michael....@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-2505
fx: 908-766-5194

Holyce Hess Groos
Vice President & CFO
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
holly...@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-5507 (direct)

Suleiman Hessami
Vice President
Pricing & Contract Management
22001 Loudon County Parkway
Ashburn, VA 20147
suleiman...@verizonbusiness.com
ph: 703-886-2017 (Pam picks up)
fx: 703-886-0116

John Hoey
Vice President
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
john....@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-4760 (Robin picks up)
fx: 908-766-3965

Jerry Holland
Vice President
CLEC Operations
175 Park Avenue Rm 125
Madison, NJ 07940
jerry....@verizon.com
ph: 973-350-5111
fx: 973-660-1065

Bob Ingalls
Executive Vice President & Chief Marketing Officer
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
robert.e....@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-1112 (Shaw? picks up)
fx: 908-696-2210

Virginia Ruesterholz
President
Verizon Telecom
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
virginia.p....@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-1069 (Diane picks up)
fx: 908-696-2135

Joseph Russo
Vice President
Service Assistance Support
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
joseph....@verizon.com
ph: 908-559-2266 (Robin picks up)
fx: 908-696-2175

Tom Tauke
Executive Vice President
Public Affairs, Policy & Communications
140 West Street, 29th Fl
New York, NY 10007
thomas....@verizon.com
ph: 212-395-1032
fx: 908-696-2036

Doreen Toben
Executive Vice President & CFO
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097
doreen....@verizon.com
ph: 212-395-1057 (Doreen Thompson picks up)
fx: 800-295-5136

[nob...@nada.com]

Put "verizon corp phone" in Google it's the first listing after the
ads. You think you'll get better responses there?

[spligutherism]

After reaching Verizon at a corp level, and they are great, *our* team
has SOLVED THE PROBLEM. No shit, it's so easy, programming wise.

Verzion corp is calling us back Monday, and we are offering a end
to all this, no BS, no demands, just simple return to day 1.

And once we dot all the 'i's etc, and the code is pure, we will
give it free to the world. J is amazed none of ya big programmers
figured this out..it was soooo simple. Best of all..get this...

..there is *NOTHING* Google can do to stop it...

Mike Olson

[AL]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>I suspect
>that almost everyone allows the update because they have no idea that
>there could possibly be negative aspects of the update.

My phone is over 2.5 years old now. It came with version 2.2 and has
never been updated. Yet when I check in settings it always says the
phone is up to date. An obvious (good?) bug.

>The Android
>device will constantly be asking for permission to do the update unless
>you take specific steps to stop it, and few people know how to to this.

It only asks to be updated about every month or so, or on a reboot. I
always say 'yes' and it counts down to zero and then immediately
resumes what it was doing without updating.

The phone otherwise works flawlessly so I never worried about it.
That's good cause I have well over another year before I'm eligible
for another subsidy (another story).

[nob...@nada.com]

Want to share how and who you contacted at Verizon.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 4/17/2013 7:07 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <nvlsm8d1gvt2dhhpl...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism
> wrote:
>
>>> My Galaxy S3 has 4.1.2 and appears to have the mass storage mode that's
>>> supposed to be missing. Is it safe to assume that Samsung has provided the
>>> capability that Google has removed?
>>
>> If that is the case, then Motorola allowed said feature to be
>> removed, bullshited the guy for days, cost him $, and then
>> blamed Google. ? Verizon claims to be shipping him a new
>> one with the feature enabled. Who do ya have to fuck to

>> get a phone that works as built, advertised, instructed to
>> in the manual, and not butchered by a 3rd party ONLY for

>> the 3rd party's personal gain? Think about that for a sec..
>>
>> Never mind having to sign up for a 2 yr contract and PAY
>> for the phone too. Someone show us where this is fair.
>>
>> I'ts like buying a car that has a radio that only get's one
>> station, that said station paid/slept with the car maker
>> to make the radio be stuck on.
>
> It's like you buying the car without doing even the most basic research
> into it, then finding out about it, then screaming and yelling that the
> world owes you "fairness" on your terms, despite you not doing a damn
> thing to research that expensive product in the first place.
>
> You really do have some fucked up sense of entitlement, don't you.
>

I guess some people just don't bother to read that contract. VZW will
honor its part of the contract. They will enforce what you agreed to!
READ before you sign! If you are really smart, you'll ask your lawyer
to go over your contract and translate it into English if you have any
uncertainty in your mind. Failure to do so may cost money you didn't
want to spend!

[spligutherism]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:32:54 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I guess some people just don't bother to read that contract. VZW will
>honor its part of the contract. They will enforce what you agreed to!
>READ before you sign! If you are really smart, you'll ask your lawyer
>to go over your contract and translate it into English if you have any
>uncertainty in your mind. Failure to do so may cost money you didn't
>want to spend!

Then the 'contract' over rides the manual, and how the device is
built, and troubles hooted for days/weeks by the manuf, because the
3rd party wants to charge you xtra $$ for their none detailed, non
verizon service? Extortion. Well, we found out how to beat that,
and it works. And when it's over, we'll give it away to the world..

...for free...

We will give VZW a chance to be the good guy here, no big
demands, just a return to day one, and maybe a little return.

..and Google can go fuck themselves...

Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:06:58 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Yes, the contract overrides the manual. The manufacturer enables the
>hardware to do some things, but VZW by contract retains complete
>controls over giving you access to those things.

So a item is sold to do 'X', and later paper work says that it
is extorted to do 'Y'. Manuf and provider has their name on
said manual. Page #50. 3rd party..not the manuf or provider
does the dirty deed. And you say the 2 yr contract buyer, after
6 prior years of good service, on time paid bill (which thus makes
the USER'S end of the contract ok) now void because a 3rd party
decides they want to charge them xtra $$ to do what the shipped
device, and the manual with the shipped device, says it can do,
and the enclosed boxed from the provider includes the tools to
do what the manual says the device can do. AND..said device
is not shipped with this magic 'contract' that seems to change
whenever the 3rd party decides they want it to, for their profit ?

..are you that much of a complete and utter fool...?

>That you didn't know that, is not the world's problem or fault. It's
>YOUR fault. Had you read the contract or done some basic research, you
>would now that's how VZW does things.

Read above. WHY can the 3rd party change play in mid field..?

It was a re-new. And said device was sold/shipped/designed/pimped
to do 'X'. Manuf says it can. 3rd party decides on a day to day
basis..really..to change this "..contract.." and only because they
want to make more $$ from the paid up contracted 2yr user who
has *NO control over what is being done to them. Extortion.

>Consider this to be cheap tuition for the school of life.

Bucko, we've dealt with bigger people the VZW, names then if
dropped, crack the ground, and we don't blame VZW over it,
it GOOGLE who is fucking VZW users up the ass for $$$$$$$

VZW is just Google's pimp...

>"Extortion"? How is it "extortion" for VZW to deliver exactly what they
>told you they'd deliver?

See above or get someone to baby talk it to ya..

>Oh, I get it: you claim no responsibility for understanding anything
>you get yourself into, and you claim to be entitled for the whole world
>to get you out of anything you stupidly got yourself into.

The Whole world? No..Gawd, you are a asshole..

..no wait, if you can't understand the above, u r a insult to
assholes everywhere. Or you just want to play games..

>The more you open your mouth, the farther in goes your foot.

Better then your's up your ass..

Weird thing is, we found a fix to all this, and when final
tests are done, we will give it away. And so far, there is
NOTHING Google can do about it, unless they hijack the
USER'S phone..and we found a way to over ride THAT.

..and it's sooooo easy...VZW could of done it if they tried
or wanted to. Corp level of VZW listens. Google is afraid.

Mike Olson







God Bless us, because we is funky...
Making our own rules, no matter the price..
and you best believe...we NEVER think twice...

[AL]

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I guess some people just don't bother to read that contract.

I would say that (IMO) the vast majority of Verizon customers don't
read the contract. Even you. Even me. And if we did would we
completely understand what a stable of lawyers took weeks to produce?
Course not.

>If you are really smart, you'll ask your lawyer to go over your contract

Hire a lawyer? $150/hr? Pretty funny. Most people understand the basic
points of the contract well enough. Take the subsidy, make the
payments, or cancel at a large penalty. What part is hard to
understand?

In this case the solution could have been relatively easy. When it was
discovered that the phone wouldn't work for the owners purposes, he
could have brought it back for an exchange or refund. Easy Peasy.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/support/return-policy

[Justin]

Splig Utherism wrote on [Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:04:31 -0400]:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:06:58 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the contract overrides the manual. The manufacturer enables the
>>hardware to do some things, but VZW by contract retains complete
>>controls over giving you access to those things.
>
> So a item is sold to do 'X', and later paper work says that it
> is extorted to do 'Y'. Manuf and provider has their name on
> said manual. Page #50. 3rd party..not the manuf or provider

Yes. Google "PS3 Linux" for an example of this

> Read above. WHY can the 3rd party change play in mid field..?

What is the third party here? Motorola IS Google

[sms]

On 4/21/2013 8:58 AM, AL wrote:

> In this case the solution could have been relatively easy. When it was
> discovered that the phone wouldn't work for the owners purposes, he
> could have brought it back for an exchange or refund. Easy Peasy.

That works until your phone receives an OTA update of the OS and it no
longer works as it did when you purchased it. These updates can occur
well past the return date. The other thing that the carriers do is to
push PRL updates that often worsen coverage as roaming is removed.

[nob...@nada.com]

There was no change in midfield. All you had to do was read the
contract to know the rules. Verizon has shitty customer service but so
do all the carriers. All of them screw with what's on the phone. Look
at the bloatware that comes on every one (except the Google Nexus
phones, and even they have some stuff you can't remove).

Your endless whining here isn't going to change anything.

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:41:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <78r7n8dfd93358q4d...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

>wrote:

>> >Yes, the contract overrides the manual. The manufacturer enables the
>> >hardware to do some things, but VZW by contract retains complete
>> >controls over giving you access to those things.

>> So a item is sold to do 'X',

>no, it's not. Read what I said: "the manufacturer enables the hardware

>to do some things, but VZW by contract retains complete controls over
>giving you access to those things".

>Now, who did you buy the item from? That's right--VZW. And VZW never
>sold it to do "X" except under very certain circumstances, which revolve
>around you paying for "X".

>The phone manufacturer did NOT sell you the phone, did he? No, he did
>not.

Then, idiot, provider should not make MANUAL telling how
to do 'X' available on *THEIR* website if they are Google's pimp.

USER buys the device..owns the DEVICE. IS sold the DEVICE
to DO 'X' by what the PROVIDER'S WEBSITE SAYS IT CAN DO !!!

You are a complete idiot...

Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:42:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <78r7n8dfd93358q4d...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

>wrote:
>
>> >Yes, the contract overrides the manual. The manufacturer enables the
>> >hardware to do some things, but VZW by contract retains complete
>> >controls over giving you access to those things.
>>
>> So a item is sold to do 'X', and later paper work says that it
>> is extorted to do 'Y'. Manuf and provider has their name on
>> said manual. Page #50. 3rd party..not the manuf or provider
>> does the dirty deed.
>

>What "third party"? VZW is not the third party, but they own whether or
>not you are allowed to do things on the phone.

I'll use even smaller words so you might understand..

Having to do this proves you have no fucking clue..

*G*O*O*G*L*E* is the 3rd party..

THEY do the changes...

THEY force you to PAY THEM after THEY MAKE SAID
CHANGES AGAINST HOW THE DEVICE IS MADE/DESIGNED/
SOLD (under a 2 yr contract)/and VZW TELLS YOU WHAT TO
DO ON PAGE #50 OF THE MANUAL WITH *their* NAME ON IT.

..I suggest you stay in school and learn reality...idiot..

Mike Olson

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:56:10 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>That works until your phone receives an OTA update of the OS and it no
>longer works as it did when you purchased it. These updates can occur
>well past the return date. The other thing that the carriers do is to
>push PRL updates that often worsen coverage as roaming is removed.

EXACTLY..

And when they can do it from day to day, costing you $$, and do it
so THEY can charge you $$ to do what the device did yesterday..?

And when both the provider and manuf spend over a week
t/shooting what they SHOULD KNOW IN THE 1ST PLACE and
that cost our company time/$$ and anger.. Total extortion..

YOU understand...


Mike Olson...

[sms]

On 4/21/2013 12:53 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> which, as the carrier's lawyers have ensured, is well within the
> contractual agreement.

I was pointing out that the 30 day return or exchange policy isn't
really going to help in many cases.

> That users are so worked up about getting their shiny new toy and ignore
> what they're actually signing themselves up for, is not my problem.
> It's not the world's problem. It's the user's problem. And it's not
> "unfair" or "extortion" at all, but whiny entitled assholes who think
> the world revolves around them, think it is.

It's not unreasonable to expect that when you purchase a computing
device that upgrades to the operating system that are pushed by the
manufacturer will not remove functionality that was present when you
purchased the device. Whether the contract permits it or not.

I'm glad to be on Verizon's network with Android devices and not having
Google or Verizon forcing updates. But I had to take specific steps to
prevent the updates and update reminders, and most users would not know
how to take these steps.

I hope that Page Plus continues in business for a long time.

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:53:15 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>That users are so worked up about getting their shiny new toy and ignore
>what they're actually signing themselves up for, is not my problem.
>It's not the world's problem. It's the user's problem. And it's not
>"unfair" or "extortion" at all, but whiny entitled assholes who think
>the world revolves around them, think it is.

You are either a complete idiot, or work for them..

THEY can change the contract from day to day..as in this case..
yet the USER is signed up for 2 yrs, and THEY can change things
AFTER the return date period? Maybe you like taking it up
the ass from such BS. AND NO CONTRACT WAS SIGNED OR
SHIPPED WITH THE DEVICE, AND SINCE IT WAS A RE-NEW, IT
INVOLVES THE *OLD* CONTRACT UNLESS A NEW ONE IS SIGNED.

This was done DIRECTLY thru VZW, not any local store...

Mike Olson

[Justin]

Splig Utherism wrote on [Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:03:45 -0400]:
> Having to do this proves you have no fucking clue..
>
> *G*O*O*G*L*E* is the 3rd party..
>
> THEY do the changes...
>
> THEY force you to PAY THEM after THEY MAKE SAID
> CHANGES AGAINST HOW THE DEVICE IS MADE/DESIGNED/
> SOLD (under a 2 yr contract)/and VZW TELLS YOU WHAT TO
> DO ON PAGE #50 OF THE MANUAL WITH *their* NAME ON IT.

The device is doing what it was designed to do. It was designed to
run Android.

How is google forcing anyone to pay anything?

[spligutherism]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:10:03 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>How is google forcing anyone to pay anything?

According to the VZW website:

The device is made to transfer files of any size from
the PC to the device via a USB cord provided with the
device, and instructed to do on page #50 of the VZW/Moto
manual. Google forces the device to NOT work that way.

VZW/Moto is named on the manual, and instructions...

THEY BOTH then become responsiable..in print & online..

..world-wide to the mass public...

We even talked to their CORP local stores who state the above.

Thus, device and service is sold/contracted by lies, and
we go thru over a week of BS costing us xx times the
list $$ of this thing, and BS'd by Manuf and provider..

..till we reached corp level... Then all the colors changed..

VZW got a wake up call..to be honest, J says they are kool...

Google forces you to 'Cloud' the files to the device.

Google (Cloud) charges you $$ over said amount of data.

(sorry if our data is over the small free amount Cloud allows,
and why should GOOGLE control it in the 1st place ?????)

..for a fee...

On top of it all, our company cannot use a 3rd party source
to transfer files because of legal confidence paperwork.

..they mention Cloud, YouTube, Facebook by name..

We transfer files by changing cards..Google 'updates'
the device to let us SEE the files, but not access them.

VZW has all this on file, audio, and paperwork..so do we...

..without giving the USER the right to op out, not
upgrade..they just do it. And VZW does squat ..

Till now.. VZW corp is calling J Monday...

..because we found out..how to play the game...

Mike Olson

(who wrote 'our' code)


I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
But hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said look it baby
you can't drive no more at night
you got a crack in ya cylinder head
..and a short is in ya lights

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

I said..face it baby..
you know it's time to go.
I won't write you no letter gal..
IF you drive real slow.

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

You know, I hate to see it, baby..
..that evening sun go down.
Ain't it awesome lonesome..
..yeah, you going around..

I said..Hey Hey baby
let me ride in yer car machine..
I said you got a good carburetor..
Hey, you running bad gasoline..

[sms]

On 4/21/2013 5:18 PM, Splig Utherism wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:10:03 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> How is google forcing anyone to pay anything?
>
> According to the VZW website:
>
> The device is made to transfer files of any size from
> the PC to the device via a USB cord provided with the
> device, and instructed to do on page #50 of the VZW/Moto
> manual. Google forces the device to NOT work that way.

Actually you can still transfer files between the computer and the
phone. What you can no longer do is to access files on the phone as if
the phone were a USB memory stick. You have to transfer the file to the
PC and then work with it there.

To me this is very annoying. Often I'll want to e-mail or post a photo
that's on my phone, but using a program from the PC, without first
copying the file to the PC. I certainly don't want to open the phone and
move the MicroSD card to a card reader.

In any case, there's nothing you can do about it with Verizon or
Motorola or Google.

[AL]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:

>> I would say that (IMO) the vast majority of Verizon customers don't
>> read the contract. Even you. Even me. And if we did would we
>> completely understand what a stable of lawyers took weeks to produce?
>> Course not.
>

>Does that make it any less your obligation to read and understand the
>contract, or at least accept that you're bound to it if you go through
>with the agreement?

I have no obligation to read the contract. But I *may* be bound by the
contract. Depends on what the judge says. But for the piddly sums I
have tied up in Verizon subsidies I doubt it would ever come to that.

>Apparently, the part where VZW says they can do whatever they want at
>any time, and if you want to suck from their teat you agree that that's
>perfectly OK.

I can't ever remember reading a Verizon contract, but I doubt it says
that they can do whatever they want at any time. But even if that were
true it would make no difference to me. I stick with Verizon simply
because they've always given me reasonably good service. If that ever
changes I'll just go elsewhere.

>Had the OP read that part of the VZW contract, he may or may not have
>signed on the bottom line and agreed to do business with VZW.

Even if the OP (or was it his boss?) signed on the dotted line he
could still have returned the phone and walked. He didn't need to read
the contract to find that out, it's plainly posted on the Verizon
site.

>But he
>chose to, and now he's claiming that VZW doing what they both agreed VZW
>could do is "unfair" and "extortion".

It's what my grandkids would call being dramatic... ;)

[AL]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>I'm glad to be on Verizon's network with Android devices and not having
>Google or Verizon forcing updates.

It's not as bad as all that. The wife's iPhone 5 just keeps purring
along, updates and all. I've not had to do a thing to it since she got
it. It just works.

>But I had to take specific steps to
>prevent the updates and update reminders, and most users would not know
>how to take these steps.

Apparently most users don't care:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-profit-surges-postpaid-additions-keep-flowing-q1/2013-04-18

[AL]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 4/21/2013 8:58 AM, AL wrote:
>
>> In this case the solution could have been relatively easy. When it was
>> discovered that the phone wouldn't work for the owners purposes, he
>> could have brought it back for an exchange or refund. Easy Peasy.
>
>That works until your phone receives an OTA update of the OS and it no
>longer works as it did when you purchased it.

If you discover that a new phone won't work for you don't you think
that an immediate return or exchange would be wise no matter what
*might* happen on later updates?

[spligutherism]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:47:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <svu8n8h8eejj2s5jo...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism
>wrote:

>> On top of it all, our company cannot use a 3rd party source
>> to transfer files because of legal confidence paperwork.

>I think it's hilarious that in such an environment, you're using a
>consumer-oriented device to do *any* work.

Yet such device is sold as part of a 'business' plan... U idiot.

WHO decides what device can be used for what?

Then the new tablet crap can only be used at a consumer
level while it's sold/advertised/etc that it can be used biz wise?

Can't use VZW on ya phone on the web, as it's designed
for biz? Just faceboik/twitter/uboob? Then don't run ads
saying otherwise on TV day and night, and show such info
off ya websites. They can't have it both ways, and we don't
think they are trying to do that. Yet it all reads that way...

You have no fucking clue about how the real world works...

>But it's not unreasonable to understand that if the terms and conditions
>allow for that, that it might happen.

AND...their T&C says..on the VZW webpage..that the
user may control what a 3rd party does. Read it, jerk.

Yet Google does not allow the User to deny the damage
they do whenever they feel like for their own $$$ gain...

You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, 'elmo'
and I just proved it. Now please, come back with some snappy
reply. J is awaiting VZW corp people's call in 2 hrs, and will
tell them what needs to be done..easy, no hassle shit..to end this.

4 simple steps. And we LOVE VZW otherwise. We just found
out how to play the game, and cripple Google's hold on the
user. So far, it's worked 5 times against Google's actions.

When perfected, we will give it away for free to the world,
upgrade it for free, and do it with no anger towards anyone.

YOU, 'elmo' can shove it up yer ass & fly to the moon..

..if you haven't already...


Mike Olson

..oh, btw..if your name IS elmo..no offense ment...



Don't confuse the facts with
half truths and gorilla dust...





. . . Well, it's about time to close ....

I hope you've had as much fun as we have.
Don't forget the jam session Sunday . . .
MANDY TENSION will be by,
playing his xylophone troupe.

It's really been a lot of fun.

Monday night is the dance contest night:

THE TWIST CONTEST

..we're gonna give away...
peanut butter & jelly & baloney sanwiches
...for all of ya.

IT REALLY HAS BEEN FUN.

I hope we've played your requests . . .
... the songs you like to hear .

LAST CALL FOR ALCOHOL!

Drink it up, folks.

Wonnerful.

Nice to see you, Bob . . .
how's it goin'? How's the kids?
Wonnerful. Nice to see ya.

Yes. BILL BAILEY? Oh . . .
...we'll get to that tomorrow night.

Yeah.

CARAVAN (with a drum sola)?

Right. Yeah . . . we'll do that.

Wonnerful.
Nice to see you again.
Yeah.

LA LA LA LAH-H-H-H!
DOWN AT THE POMPADOUR A-GO-GO
LA LA LA LA LAH-H-H-H!
VO DO DEE OH PEE PEE
SHOOBE DOOT-N-DAH-DAH-DAH
YA DA DA-A-A-A-H-H-H-H-H!
NA NYA DA DA DA DA DAH-H-H-H-H-H!

Nite all.

[Justin]

Splig Utherism wrote on [Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:15 -0400]:

I have to wonder how much work you actually get done, you can't compose
a simple message using whole words and sentences. You have a hard time
even conveying the problem you appear to be having.

[SMS]

On 4/21/2013 10:05 PM, AL wrote:

> I can't ever remember reading a Verizon contract, but I doubt it says
> that they can do whatever they want at any time. But even if that were
> true it would make no difference to me. I stick with Verizon simply
> because they've always given me reasonably good service. If that ever
> changes I'll just go elsewhere.

When I had Verizon service directly (rather than through one of their
MVNOs as I do now), on two occasions they sent me a letter giving me the
choice of terminating service or accepting revised terms in the
contract. But they never offered to buy back the handset if I terminated
service. That wasn't such a big deal when you paid a piddling amount for
a dumb phone, but it might be an issue with a smart phone (though
perhaps not because the subsidies are huge and the subscriber could
probably resell the smart phone for more than they paid for it).

Verizon always seemed to be the more honest of the carriers. Their junk
fees were lower, they didn't explicitly lie about coverage and dropped
calls (like another top tier carrier), they didn't use smarmy
double-speak in their advertising (they never based their coverage
claims on the number of people covered like the PCS carriers often do),
and their customer service was very good. Even now, AT&T is continuing
on in the spirit of Cingular; there are full page ads in Bay Area
newspapers claiming that AT&T is top-rated in San Francisco and San Jose
even though every independent survey and study shows this not to be the
case. AT&T claims to have the most 4G coverage even though this is
clearly untrue if you believe that only LTE speeds really qualify as 4G.
I suspect that if you called AT&T on this they would explain that a)
W-CDMA qualifies as 4G (T-Mobile already claims this), b) they have more
native W-CDMA coverage than Verizon native CDMA 2000 plus LTE coverage
in terms of population covered (there are a few areas where Verizon has
3G or LTE coverage via a roaming partner so this might be true). But
Verizon has _far_ more LTE coverage than AT&T.

[nob...@nada.com]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:05:13 -0700, AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com>
wrote:

And what their parents would call having a tantrum.

[AL]

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>they [Verizon] sent me a letter giving me the

>choice of terminating service or accepting revised terms in the
>contract.

I don't remember ever getting one of those letters though they
probably do occasionally change the terms of my contract. It's
probably in the contract that I should check for that... :)

>But they never offered to buy back the handset if I terminated
>service.

Yes. If I was really pissed with Verizon and decided to quit
immediately I would take a double hit, one for replacing the phones
and one for the contract penalties. It would have to be pretty serious
before I'd do that.

I was going to say it's not as easy as leaving Verizon as leaving a
landline, ISP, or cable company but then I remembered I have a 2 year
contract on those too (Cox bundle). 8-O

[spligutherism]

VZW called J and they came to terms, seems they were more
then able to do so. This issue is over. VZW was completely
open to all areas, and it was simple to do. Like it should be..

VZW is STILL the best service around..bar none...

Mike Olson

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 4/22/2013 9:18 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <h0van8lhopgmr57ag...@4ax.com>, Splig Utherism

> wrote:
>
>> VZW is STILL the best service around..bar none...
>

> Define "best service". Best technical signal strength overall, and
> ability to place/maintain a call? Possibly.
>
> Best to be in a business relationship with? Absolutely not.
>

I have been a VZW customer for a bit longer than fifteen years. I can
recall only once being unable to make or receive calls anywhere that I
have been. That's ALL the of the Eastern Seaboard and and a lot of the
rest and only *once* been unable to make a call.

I'm sure that there are places in the continental USA where VZW Cellular
Phone service is NOT available but I have encountered only only one!

That's good enough for my needs. Your experience may vary!

[sms]

On 4/24/2013 3:02 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> That's "all you need"? You don't care about the business relationship
> aspect?
>
> So you would pay $100/call for VZW service? $1000/call?

Actually, based on his older posts, he _doesn't_ care about the cost.
Nor is it required that everyone be cost sensitive and pay the lowest
cost for a specific product or service.

I know several people in real life just like Richard when it comes to
wireless service. They overpay for their Verizon service by 100-300%
based on the minutes, texts, and data they use and they have absolutely
zero interest in paying less for the same service, even when it's
explained to them exactly how to do so. Nothing wrong with this, in fact
it's a good thing because it enables the providers to sell their service
to more savvy customers for less and still meet their ARPU goals. That's
the world works, there are few products or services where everyone pays
the same, and often the price differences are enormous (don't get me
started about pool chemicals like chlorine and sodium bicarbonate!).

But ironically, some of these same people moan about how their wireless
bill for their whole family is several hundred dollars per month!

Similarly, I know someone, who is in my Toastmaster's club, who not only
pays Verizon three times as much as necessary for mobile service on her
dumb phone, she also is paying about $68 per month to AT&T for home
phone service plus _dial-up_ Internet access. She's an older lady and I
went to her house to help her with some computer problems, and when she
told me how much she was paying to AT&T I explained to her that she
could get DSL and all-inclusive landline service from another company
(Sonic.net) for about $18 less per month, and how they set everything up
for her. She expressed an interest but of course she never did anything
about it. That's fine, I told her a better way to go and my
responsibility is fulfilled.

It all goes back to one of my favorite quotes:

�It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.�

Mark Crispin, inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol.

[spligutherism]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:35:35 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Similarly, I know someone, who is in my Toastmaster's club, who not only
>pays Verizon three times as much as necessary for mobile service on her
>dumb phone, she also is paying about $68 per month to AT&T for home
>phone service plus _dial-up_ Internet access. She's an older lady and I
>went to her house to help her with some computer problems, and when she
>told me how much she was paying to AT&T I explained to her that she
>could get DSL and all-inclusive landline service from another company
>(Sonic.net) for about $18 less per month, and how they set everything up
>for her. She expressed an interest but of course she never did anything
>about it. That's fine, I told her a better way to go and my
>responsibility is fulfilled.

I know people who look into the final pay out to all the services, and
it blows ya mind, and too often it all on auto-pilot or contract.

Many just pay as long as it works. Most of them are even low
usage, .00% web crap, ditto. Yet for the idiot $ they pay, they
BETTER get the service. Esp when it's been done for XX years.

>�It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once

>you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is

>fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.�

..and make sure you invent something to keep them losers..

Re-new said loser every 2 years, sell something 2 lose they now
*HAVE* to have to be losers, and make the data plan more lost.


For a $$, by the way. If you like it or not..


And if you don't..well...


Anyway..nite all...


Mike Olson

[AL]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>Nor is it required that everyone be cost sensitive and pay the lowest
>cost for a specific product or service.

True. Otherwise we all would be driving cheap cars, living in cheap
apartments, as well as needing to use a cheap cell service.

>I know several people in real life just like Richard when it comes to
>wireless service. They overpay for their Verizon service by 100-300%

Perhaps Richard just likes the good Verizon service he has been
getting and is willing to pay for it. Come to think of it that's my
reason for staying with Verizon as well.

>It all goes back to one of my favorite quotes:
>

>It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
>you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
>fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.
>

> Mark Crispin, inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol.

One of my favorite quotes:

It's better to be successful enough in life that you don't have to
live on the cheap.

AL, Usenet gadfly... ;)

[SMS]

On 4/25/2013 2:17 PM, AL wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nor is it required that everyone be cost sensitive and pay the lowest
>> cost for a specific product or service.
>
> True. Otherwise we all would be driving cheap cars, living in cheap
> apartments, as well as needing to use a cheap cell service.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about paying wildly different prices for
the exact same car or essentially the same cell phone service. In fact I
used to be someone that did the latter.

Before: 300 minutes, 0 texts, no data, on Verizon's network: $35/month
after taxes and fees, plus the cost of any texts.

After: 1200 minutes, 3000 texts, 250MB of data, on Verizon's network:
$30/month. Or 250 minutes, 250 texts, 10MB of data for $12 per month.

I cannot fathom using any other network than Verizon for my area of the
country. Sprint and T-Mobile have far less coverage, and AT&T has
moderately less coverage.