I can't believe this - has Verizon lost its mind?
LiRM
I've been on Verizon a long time. I went to check to update my phone
the other day and found I was eligible to get a new RAZR for free.
That was the good news.
Having been fooled before (getting a v710 only to find OBEX not
enabled), I went to the Bluetooth FAQ only to find they have - get
this - disabled ALL parts of the Bluetooth profile that has allowed me
in the past to pair with Palm Zire to use the phone as a modem.
I couldn't believe what I was reading.
I called in to verify this with a few different support reps and they
confirmed it.
Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
the phone to function as a modem.
Are they out of their minds?
Seriously.
They have lost it all together.
Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
why on Earth would they do such a thing?
Oh yeah! Money!
They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
for it now.
And yes, I have done this for 7 years. My first device that this
worked with a Visor Deluxe. Granted, it required a cable, but it
worked.
I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers. Since my
phones have been trimode's, I have gotten service in the boonies at
times when no one else could. No drop offs. At this - they are
excellent at. Give credit where credit is due.
Alas, I have an order in for a RAZR from Cingular whilst we speak -
which has the entire Bluetooth profile enabled.
Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the verge of
losing a customer that's been one for YEARS. Since you took over
whoever you took over to begin with when you first started. Been with
you guys since day 1.
I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
do it for Christs'sake).
But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a Bluetooth
profile when it's one of the primary reasons Bluetooth was developed?
I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place - with some of
the people in that meeting realizing just how ludicrous this is. I
can guarantee you that they must have been looking at the mensa
candidate who came up with this idea as if they had literally lost
their mind.
I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to believe this
myself. In spite of all the insanity that followed the v710's lawsuit
about this very issue. you guys go ahead and kill this part of the
profile anyway?
Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do whatcha gotta do
to make a buck and all, but there must be guys at Cingular, Sprint,
you name it - laughing this asses off over this - and probably will be
for months.
For people like me who probably use their phones more as a device to
connect to the net then they do talk, you are literally forcing people
to walk away.
This will go down in cellular history as one of the biggest fuck ups
ever implemented.
Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other phone to get
this to work, but fuck that. If you're a Verizon customer and
*that's* what you're doing to get parts of your phone working at some
point you have to ask yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself
through all this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
that forces you to go through that to make your phone work the way it
was designed to in the first place? (In other words what Moto giveth
you, Verizon taketh away. lol. Fuck them).
Sorry. I just don't get it.
I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from Cingular. Then
it's decision time. Send it back to Cingular or keep it and make the
switch. Maybe Verizon will shake some marbles loose during this
period and realize what a stupid move this is.
Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone gets
to fix them. Do the right thing and give back what you stupidly took
away.
Regards,
LiRM
kevin weaver
news:8bt8021i62m6jv2ll...@4ax.com...
They won't. You figure the 710 class action would have had some effect.
Nope, they don't care.
John Navas
In <1O%Mf.476$1K4...@fe07.lga> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:31:42 -0800, "kevin
weaver" <kevinw...@charter.net> wrote:
>They won't. You figure the 710 class action would have had some effect.
>Nope, they don't care.
Of course "they" [Verizon] care. "They" know that most customers don't care
about this issue as compared to other issues.
The class action was silly, and only settled (not adjudicated) because that
cost much less than fighting, which is what unscrupulous class action lawyers
count on.
This is simply a matter of business choice. Verizon is free to act in its own
best interests, just as customers are free to act in their own best interests.
Bitching about this makes as much sense as bitching that (say) Starbucks
coffee isn't terribly good. Don't like the service or product? Then choose
some other service or product that suits you better.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Quick
> get a new RAZR for free.
> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile
> that allows the phone to function as a modem.
> Oh yeah! Money!
>
> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they
> can get a quarter out of. Like being able to transfer
> mp3's. Or pictures. Or instead of just using my minutes
> to connect to the net - like I have done literally for
> the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass for it
> now.
There you have it. They *want* you to pay. You have
to do that on your own free will. Apparently others are.
> And yes, I have done this for 7 years. .
> Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the
> verge of losing a customer that's been one for YEARS.
Sounds like you were a big spender.
> But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a
> Bluetooth profile when it's one of the primary reasons
> Bluetooth was developed?
I'm still reading this over and over... Is this some sort of
technology blasphemy? Are you a BT disciple or something?
> I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place -
> with some of the people in that meeting realizing just
> how ludicrous this is. I can guarantee you that they
> must have been looking at the mensa candidate who
> came up with this idea as if they had literally lost their mind.
He was lucky they didn't throw him to the ground and
brand "BT" into his forehead.
> I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to
> believe this myself. In spite of all the insanity that
> followed the v710's lawsuit about this very issue. you
> guys go ahead and kill this part of the profile anyway?
No confusion now. "NO BT modem"
> Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do
> whatcha gotta do to make a buck and all, but there must
> be guys at Cingular, Sprint, you name it - laughing this
> asses off over this - and probably will be for months.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll dump my stock right away.
> For people like me who probably use their phones more as
> a device to connect to the net then they do talk, you are
> literally forcing people to walk away.
Lets see.... 33+ million and maybe 10K left?
> This will go down in cellular history as one of the
> biggest fuck ups ever implemented.
Certainly right up there with the savings and loan
collapse, Enron, ...
> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
> parts of your phone working at some point you have to ask
> yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through all
> this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
> that forces you to go through that to make your phone
> work the way it was designed to in the first place? (In
> other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon taketh away.
> lol. Fuck them).
Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
software/firmware.
> Sorry. I just don't get it.
You really don't...
> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from
> Cingular. Then it's decision time. Send it back to
> Cingular or keep it and make the switch. Maybe Verizon
> will shake some marbles loose during this period and
> realize what a stupid move this is.
Give them some time. I'm sure they have passed your
address to the Moto CEO and they're making you a gold
plated, custom Razor with every wireless technology
currently known to man.
John Navas
In <WV%Mf.41182$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
17:40:06 GMT, "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>LiRM wrote:
>> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
>> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
>> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
>> parts of your phone working at some point you have to ask
>> yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through all
>> this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
>> that forces you to go through that to make your phone
>> work the way it was designed to in the first place? (In
>> other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon taketh away.
>> lol. Fuck them).
>
>Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
>software/firmware.
Technically true, but VZW does control how Moto configures phones that VZW
sells.
Isaiah Beard
> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
> the phone to function as a modem.
>
> Are they out of their minds?
Nope.
> Seriously.
Nope.
> They have lost it all together.
>
> Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
> why on Earth would they do such a thing?
>
> Oh yeah! Money!
Last I checked, they ARE allowed to make money. And also, Verizon isn't
the only carrier that prohibits illicit tethering of their devices.
Pretty all the carriers impose some kind of restriction on tethering for
data without getting the appropriate price plan. Verizon just happens
to actually enforce that rule a little more aggressively than most,
though Sprint is also starting to get on the ball as well. To do it
"legally," all of the "Big Three" carriers charge the same amount: $60 a
month on top of your voice plan.
By the way: I've seen the throughput of EVDO data tethering via
Bluetooth. Quite frankly, you're not going to get the speed. Bluetooth
DUN makes EVDO useless, while tethering over a cable is much faster and
more efficient.
> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
> quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
> instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
> done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
> for it now.
So you're bitching because Verizon isn't letting you get away with using
a service without paying for it. Fantastic.
And I never understood why people wanted to use their minutes for packet
data. It's the rawest deal in the book, especially considering that
under such a model, you're billed even if nothing is moving through the
pipe, but you just happen to have the phone in the mode to receive and
send data packets. In fact, taht's caused a LOT of problems with the
new EVDO handsets, in that they love to stay dormant on data, racking up
the airtime for those still on MOU.
> And yes, I have done this for 7 years.
So have I, on Sprint and Cingular. Sprint and Cingular are simply
dumber about figuring out when you're doing something you're not
supposed to do.
> I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
> excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers.
Then it looks like you need to make a choice between awesome coverage,
and less coverage but with a carrier who is lax about letting you take
advantage of lax network security. *shrug*
> Since my
> phones have been trimode's, I have gotten service in the boonies at
> times when no one else could.
By the way, that RAZR you're lusting after isn't tri-mode. Nor are any
other EVDO-enabled handsets. So if the boonies you speak of only have
AMPS, you're gonna be SOL with that RAZR. Just giving you fair warning.
> I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
> 20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
> do it for Christs'sake).
Uhh, no you can't. Not without Cingular charging you for the usage, per
kilobyte.
The terms of use for Cingular's $20 unlimited Media Net state:
"MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular reserves
the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages for the use of a
wireless device as an interface to other devices or networks, as
determined by Cingular, including but not limited to device tethering."
Read it for yourself: http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
In order to tether, you will need to get the same $60 plan (or actually,
it may still be $79 with Cingular) that you would have to get with
Verizon. The two carriers just have different philosophies about
enforcing this rule: Verizon locks down their phones to prevent it from
happening without you letting them know first, while Cingular waits for
you to violate the TOS and then simply sends you a four-figure bill at
the end of the month, charging you for every kilobyte you used.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Isaiah Beard
>> Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone gets
>> to fix them. Do the right thing and give back what you stupidly took
>> away.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> LiRM
>
>
> They won't. You figure the 710 class action would have had some effect.
> Nope, they don't care.
Actually the class action only served to give Verizon the opportunity to
validate their practice. They settled the suit by throwing the
"affected class" a bone by offering a refund if they jumped through
enough hoops, paid the lawyers a handsome amount of money, and put
language into the settlement that allows them to continue do what
they've been doing, with the appropriate disclaimers attached to the
marketing materials.
LiRM
<quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>LiRM wrote:
>
>> get a new RAZR for free.
>
>> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile
>> that allows the phone to function as a modem.
>
>> Oh yeah! Money!
>>
>> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they
>> can get a quarter out of. Like being able to transfer
>> mp3's. Or pictures. Or instead of just using my minutes
>> to connect to the net - like I have done literally for
>> the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass for it
>> now.
>
>There you have it. They *want* you to pay. You have
>to do that on your own free will. Apparently others are.
>
>> And yes, I have done this for 7 years. .
>
>> Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the
>> verge of losing a customer that's been one for YEARS.
>
>Sounds like you were a big spender.
>
>> But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a
>> Bluetooth profile when it's one of the primary reasons
>> Bluetooth was developed?
>
>I'm still reading this over and over... Is this some sort of
>technology blasphemy? Are you a BT disciple or something?
Not at all. But name for me, if you can, one viable wireless standard
that would allow me to connect my PDA (or a laptop) to my phone to
make a net connection.
>
>> I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place -
>> with some of the people in that meeting realizing just
>> how ludicrous this is. I can guarantee you that they
>> must have been looking at the mensa candidate who
>> came up with this idea as if they had literally lost their mind.
>
>He was lucky they didn't throw him to the ground and
>brand "BT" into his forehead.
>
>> I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to
>> believe this myself. In spite of all the insanity that
>> followed the v710's lawsuit about this very issue. you
>> guys go ahead and kill this part of the profile anyway?
>
>No confusion now. "NO BT modem"
>
>> Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do
>> whatcha gotta do to make a buck and all, but there must
>> be guys at Cingular, Sprint, you name it - laughing this
>> asses off over this - and probably will be for months.
>
>Thanks for the heads up. I'll dump my stock right away.
>
>> For people like me who probably use their phones more as
>> a device to connect to the net then they do talk, you are
>> literally forcing people to walk away.
>
>Lets see.... 33+ million and maybe 10K left?
I know there are bunches of people out there who have jumped on the
Treo bandwagons, but that doesn't suit me as I don't enjoy doing clown
tricks like having to talk into my phone while also using a keyboard
to take notes on my PDA. And believe it or not - there really are
some of us out here who actually use applications like real web
browsers, FTP apps, real POP or IMAP mail applications, terminal
services and other nifty "toy" programs that make carrying around a
PDA function damn close to what you can do with a laptop.
But we are, as you say, a dwindling breed. Markets *do* drive where
technology goes and in this case it's vcast and AOL IM, and so on. Not
that there is anything wrong with that, but I stand by what I've said.
In fact, you just reinforced my case. If we *are* such a small
minority, why remove that aspect of a profile when one can simply
leave it alone.
>
>> This will go down in cellular history as one of the
>> biggest fuck ups ever implemented.
>
>Certainly right up there with the savings and loan
>collapse, Enron, ...
>
>> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
>> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
>> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
>> parts of your phone working at some point you have to ask
>> yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through all
>> this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
>> that forces you to go through that to make your phone
>> work the way it was designed to in the first place? (In
>> other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon taketh away.
>> lol. Fuck them).
>
>Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
>software/firmware.
I didn't say they did, birdbrain. But what they *do* do is dictate to
Motorola what to leave in and out of these profiles, which is why
you'll see the same phone with this profile fully intact in the
Cingular flavor.
>
>> Sorry. I just don't get it.
>
>You really don't...
>
>> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from
>> Cingular. Then it's decision time. Send it back to
>> Cingular or keep it and make the switch. Maybe Verizon
>> will shake some marbles loose during this period and
>> realize what a stupid move this is.
>
>Give them some time. I'm sure they have passed your
>address to the Moto CEO and they're making you a gold
>plated, custom Razor with every wireless technology
>currently known to man.
The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
fully. They just lost a lawsuit over it.
But that doesn't make you any less of a dickhead for jumping on my ass
for what amounts to a still stupid (and greedy) move on Verizon's
part.
LiRM
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <1O%Mf.476$1K4...@fe07.lga> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:31:42 -0800, "kevin
>weaver" <kevinw...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>They won't. You figure the 710 class action would have had some effect.
>>Nope, they don't care.
>
>Of course "they" [Verizon] care. "They" know that most customers don't care
>about this issue as compared to other issues.
>
>The class action was silly, and only settled (not adjudicated) because that
>cost much less than fighting, which is what unscrupulous class action lawyers
>count on.
>
>This is simply a matter of business choice. Verizon is free to act in its own
>best interests, just as customers are free to act in their own best interests.
>Bitching about this makes as much sense as bitching that (say) Starbucks
>coffee isn't terribly good. Don't like the service or product? Then choose
>some other service or product that suits you better.
Which is basically what I'm in process of doing.
Do they read these newsgroups and give a fuck what one person says?
I don't know. They should. It's one barometer of what their
customers think.
*I* read these newsgroups, as do thousands of others to learn and in
this case to get a feel for what's going on "on the other side" as
well as to express my particular frustrations.
I also enjoy the feedback. Hearing other peoples perspectives can be
enlightening.
Regards,
LiRM
LiRM
<kevinw...@charter.net> wrote:
It apparantly had the opposite effect. Go figure.
But they sure made it clear in the FAQ what would work and what
wouldn't :)
Quick
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <WV%Mf.41182$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> on
> Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:06 GMT, "Quick"
> <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> LiRM wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
>>> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
>>> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
>>> parts of your phone working at some point you have to
>>> ask yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through
>>> all this shit - for what - just to keep a company in
>>> business that forces you to go through that to make
>>> your phone work the way it was designed to in the first
>>> place? (In other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon
>>> taketh away. lol. Fuck them).
>>
>> Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
>> software/firmware.
>
> Technically true, but VZW does control how Moto
> configures phones that VZW sells.
Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
activate phones not purchased through them. The
OP feels that he as been cheated somehow because
hardware capabilities have been disabled/aren't
supported in sofware on a subsidized/free Razor.
I imagine these are available directly (or will be soon)
from Moto with some other carrier's image or a generic
one?
-Quick
Michael Wise
LiRM <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote:
That pretty much sums it up.
I've been doing the data over cellular thing for just over ten years now
with my Palm devices as well as Mac and PC laptops; first with the then
SF Bay Area A-side carrier (C1 which is now absorbed into ATTWS [which I
guess is now part of Cingular making it even shittier than it was
before]) and then and still the SF Bay Area B-side carrier (GTE Wireless
which merged into the VZW phoenix).
Sure its slow, but for email it works just fine and I'm just using cell
minutes. The problem is every swinging dick has a cell phone now and
non-techie consumers are finally aware that having Internet access is a
good thing. The SMS we've been using for decades is now "texting" and
its now expected that we should be glad to pay extra for it...despite
the fact that it doesn't cost them extra. Obviously, the cell carriers
(especially VZW) know that as well...and realize its something they can
make serious money off of.
People using the QNC method with VZW do not help VZW realize the cash
windfall they're reaping in. Why do you think VZW won't sell a trimode
smart phone anymore? Because doing so allows people to use QNC and VZW
gets no EXTRA money. I say extra, because these minutes we're using
aren't free: we're paying for them. Never the less, new users are now
forced to buy a digital-only (translation: inferior) smart phone and pay
extra for a data plan. On top of that and as we all know; VZW has many
features on their phones crippled...so that the user is forced to add
some extra paid VZW feature just to get the capabilities the phone was
originally engineered to have.
Of course, it is within their legal right to do so. Corporate greed is
the American way. They can only get away with it because they can always
tout their warned holy grail of having the best overall (in terms of
coverage) network. When you are the king of the hill; you get to make
the rules. What else can you do? Go to a shitty carrier like Cingular
and not get coverage in anything close to the amount of places as VZW?
As long as VZW remains king of the coverage hill, they're going to keep
getting away with such practices.
We may not like it, but that's good ol' legal American corporate greed
in action.
--Mike
Michael Wise
"Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> LiRM wrote:
> >
> >>> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
> >>> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
> >>> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
> >>> parts of your phone working at some point you have to
> >>> ask yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through
> >>> all this shit - for what - just to keep a company in
> >>> business that forces you to go through that to make
> >>> your phone work the way it was designed to in the first
> >>> place? (In other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon
> >>> taketh away. lol. Fuck them).
> >>
> >> Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
> >> software/firmware.
> >
> > Technically true, but VZW does control how Moto
> > configures phones that VZW sells.
>
> Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
> something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
> least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
> activate phones not purchased through them. The
> OP feels that he as been cheated somehow because
> hardware capabilities have been disabled/aren't
> supported in sofware on a subsidized/free Razor.
It really isn't "free" or "subsidized" in the end as the subscriber is
forced into a long contract which more than pays for the phone several
times over. That and the fact that most of these phone are made by cheap
Chinese labor and don't people like Motorola anything close to what they
claim to be "full price" or even "subsidized" price.
It's not unreasonable to expect that when one pays for a phone...whether
its full price directly or subsidized initially, but more than full
price over time, that they get the features that phone is supposed to
have w/o having to pay extra.
--Mike
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> LiRM wrote:
>
> > Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
> > the phone to function as a modem.
> >
> > Are they out of their minds?
>
> Nope.
>
> > Seriously.
>
> Nope.
>
> > They have lost it all together.
> >
> > Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
> > why on Earth would they do such a thing?
> >
> > Oh yeah! Money!
>
> Last I checked, they ARE allowed to make money. And also, Verizon isn't
> the only carrier that prohibits illicit tethering of their devices.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illicit
>
> illicit
> adj.
>
> 1) Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.
Please direct us interested readers to the relevant section of VZW's
regulations which deem the tethering of devices (such as PDA's and cell
phones) to your VZW cell phone as "illicit."
> Pretty all the carriers impose some kind of restriction on tethering for
> data without getting the appropriate price plan.
Price plan has nothing to do with it. Data over cellular has been around
for over a decade. With VZW (and with at least one of the Borg'd
carriers which gave rise to VZW (GTE Wireless), it has never been free
and has always (and still does) count as cell minutes used.
I'm still doing it with VZW. Are my actions "illicit"? Should I hold my
breath waiting for you to submit any credible evidence that they
are...or for that matter, that you ever have anything to say about
cellular which isn't almost completely based on your opinion only (as
opposed to the facts)?
> Verizon just happens
> to actually enforce that rule a little more aggressively than most,
Which "rule" is that? Verifiable citation please.
> though Sprint is also starting to get on the ball as well. To do it
> "legally," all of the "Big Three" carriers charge the same amount: $60 a
> month on top of your voice plan.
Yes, to use their high-speed data plans. VZW has no extra charge to use
their slow (slower than 14.4k) QNC method and never has. It isn't free
though, as you use up cell minutes when on it.
> > They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
> > quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
> > instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
> > done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
> > for it now.
>
> So you're bitching because Verizon isn't letting you get away with using
> a service without paying for it. Fantastic.
When there is not now nor has ever been an extra charge for that
slower-speed data service and VZW is merely having phone manufacturers
cripple the phones they sell to VZW so that they cannot use that
service...thereby forcing them into some $50-60 extra data plan to have
Internet access from cellular....yes, there is reason to bitch.
> And I never understood why people wanted to use their minutes for packet
> data.
Low bandwidth applications like email while out and about.
> It's the rawest deal in the book, especially considering that
> under such a model, you're billed even if nothing is moving through the
> pipe, but you just happen to have the phone in the mode to receive and
> send data packets.
??? Golly gee whiz, Wally...I thought most dial-up type connections
methods (of which VZW's QNC method is) have the capability of being
initiated and broken down manually???
It's just like using a modem, and if the user is too stupid to know what
connect/disconnect mean, then they should go get themselves an AOL
account and a cell phone with shitty ring tones nobody wants to hear.
> > And yes, I have done this for 7 years.
>
> So have I, on Sprint and Cingular. Sprint and Cingular are simply
> dumber about figuring out when you're doing something you're not
> supposed to do.
No, its just that Sprint and Cingular can't afford to alienate customers
when they have cell networks which are inferior (in the way that matter
most: coverage area) to VZW's.
>
> > I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
> > excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers.
>
> Then it looks like you need to make a choice between awesome coverage,
> and less coverage but with a carrier who is lax about letting you take
> advantage of lax network security. *shrug*
What does security have to do with this? Are you sure you work for
Cisco? What do you do? Work in the mail room or something?
> ...
> Read it for yourself: http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
>
> In order to tether, you will need to get the same $60 plan (or actually,
> it may still be $79 with Cingular) that you would have to get with
> Verizon.
Good, I guess this does mean you're prepared to show us verifiable
evidence that VZW charges any fee for "tethering" devices. Let's see it.
> The two carriers just have different philosophies about
> enforcing this rule:...
A "rule" which with respect to VZW...you just made up...just like pretty
much everything else you've had to say about VZW in the last few days.
Stick with the facts, please.
--Mike
John Navas
In <6v7902920dcnvo1t0...@4ax.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:17:50
-0500, LiRM <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:48 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>This is simply a matter of business choice. Verizon is free to act in its own
>>best interests, just as customers are free to act in their own best interests.
>>Bitching about this makes as much sense as bitching that (say) Starbucks
>>coffee isn't terribly good. Don't like the service or product? Then choose
>>some other service or product that suits you better.
>
>Which is basically what I'm in process of doing.
Good for you. Seriously.
>Do they read these newsgroups and give a fuck what one person says?
I doubt it.
>I don't know. They should. It's one barometer of what their
>customers think.
The problem is the large amount of pointless noise here.
>*I* read these newsgroups, as do thousands of others to learn and in
>this case to get a feel for what's going on "on the other side" as
>well as to express my particular frustrations.
Only a tiny minority even know about Usenet.
>I also enjoy the feedback. Hearing other peoples perspectives can be
>enlightening.
Indeed.
John Navas
In <5r1Nf.61670$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
19:23:45 GMT, "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Technically true, but VZW does control how Moto
>> configures phones that VZW sells.
>
>Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
>something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
>least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
>activate phones not purchased through them.
AFAIK all of the carriers will do this if the phone is compatible with the
service. In the case of Cingular and T-Mobile, SIMs are activated, not
phones.
>The
>OP feels that he as been cheated somehow because
>hardware capabilities have been disabled/aren't
>supported in sofware on a subsidized/free Razor.
>...
Don't want the limitations? Don't buy the device.
John Navas
In <usenet-AB92B1....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
20:20:56 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>In article <5r1Nf.61670$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
>> something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
>> least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
>> activate phones not purchased through them. The
>> OP feels that he as been cheated somehow because
>> hardware capabilities have been disabled/aren't
>> supported in sofware on a subsidized/free Razor.
>
>It really isn't "free" or "subsidized" in the end as the subscriber is
>forced into a long contract
The subscriber isn't being "forced" into anything.
The contract term is to recover the cost of the subsidy.
>which more than pays for the phone several
>times over.
Only a small part of the monthly cost is applicable to the subsidy.
>That and the fact that most of these phone are made by cheap
>Chinese labor and don't people like Motorola anything close to what they
>claim to be "full price" or even "subsidized" price.
These sophisticated cell phones are actually bargains, a small fraction of
what far less sophisticated cell phones used to cost.
>It's not unreasonable to expect that when one pays for a phone...whether
>its full price directly or subsidized initially, but more than full
>price over time, that they get the features that phone is supposed to
>have w/o having to pay extra.
The phone isn't "supposed to have" anything. Different phones have different
features. Don't like the Verizon-branded feature set? Don't buy the phone.
John Navas
In <1u3902p65dsq30nhk...@4ax.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:08:49
-0500, LiRM <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:06 GMT, "Quick"
><quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>I'm still reading this over and over... Is this some sort of
>>technology blasphemy? Are you a BT disciple or something?
>
>Not at all. But name for me, if you can, one viable wireless standard
>that would allow me to connect my PDA (or a laptop) to my phone to
>make a net connection.
How is that relevant? Don't like the feature set? Don't buy the phone. My
own phone doesn't have IrDA, one of the tradeoffs I weighed before buying it.
Whether or not it could have had IrDA is irrelevant. Had I really
wanted/needed IrDA, I would have gotten some other phone.
>... If we *are* such a small
>minority, why remove that aspect of a profile when one can simply
>leave it alone.
Many possible reasons, including the cost of support.
>The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
>
>But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
>v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
>profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
>fully.
Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
>They just lost a lawsuit over it.
Nope. They settled a lawsuit over it. The class action was silly, and only
settled (not adjudicated) because that cost Verizon less than fighting, which
is what unscrupulous class action lawyers count on. Sadly, the costs of that
silliness will inevitably be passed on to subscribers.
>But that doesn't make you any less of a dickhead for jumping on my ass
>for what amounts to a still stupid (and greedy) move on Verizon's
>part.
I doubt Verizon sees it that way.
John Navas
In <12096dg...@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:42:40 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>By the way: I've seen the throughput of EVDO data tethering via
>Bluetooth. Quite frankly, you're not going to get the speed. Bluetooth
>DUN makes EVDO useless, while tethering over a cable is much faster and
>more efficient.
There must have been some issue with the implementation or configuration -- a
decent Bluetooth implementation properly configured should pose no issue to
EV-DO performance.
>> I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
>> 20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
>> do it for Christs'sake).
>
>Uhh, no you can't. Not without Cingular charging you for the usage, per
>kilobyte.
>
>The terms of use for Cingular's $20 unlimited Media Net state:
>
>"MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular reserves
>the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages for the use of a
>wireless device as an interface to other devices or networks, as
>determined by Cingular, including but not limited to device tethering."
>
>Read it for yourself: http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
>
>In order to tether, you will need to get the same $60 plan (or actually,
>it may still be $79 with Cingular) that you would have to get with
>Verizon. The two carriers just have different philosophies about
>enforcing this rule: Verizon locks down their phones to prevent it from
>happening without you letting them know first, while Cingular waits for
>you to violate the TOS and then simply sends you a four-figure bill at
>the end of the month, charging you for every kilobyte you used.
The upper limit of the charge, should Cingular decide to invoke that
provision, would be Laptop Connect Unlimited, at most $80/month.
John Navas
In <usenet-65F180....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
20:50:48 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>Please direct us interested readers to the relevant section of VZW's
>regulations which deem the tethering of devices (such as PDA's and cell
>phones) to your VZW cell phone as "illicit."
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=planFirst&action=viewPlanDetail&catId=329>
Unlimited PDA/Smartphone and BlackBerryŽ Plans:
Data sessions may be used for following purposes: (i) Internet
browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to
corporate intranets, email and individual productivity applications
like customer relationship management, sales force and field service
automation. Intranet access requires the BlackBerry Enterprise
Server.). Unlimited plans are for individual use only and not for
resale. The Unlimited plans cannot be used: (1) for any applications
that tether the device to laptops, PCs, or other equipment for any
purpose, (2) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music
or games, (3) with server devices or with host computer applications
other than the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, including, without
limitation, Web camera posts or broadcasts, continuous jpeg file
transfers, automatic data feeds, telemetry applications, automated
functions or any other machine-to-machine applications, (4) as
substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <usenet-AB92B1....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
> 20:20:56 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <5r1Nf.61670$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
> >> something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
> >> least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
> >> activate phones not purchased through them. The
> >> OP feels that he as been cheated somehow because
> >> hardware capabilities have been disabled/aren't
> >> supported in sofware on a subsidized/free Razor.
> >
> >It really isn't "free" or "subsidized" in the end as the subscriber is
> >forced into a long contract
>
> The subscriber isn't being "forced" into anything.
Sure they are. If they want the what on the face appears to be a free or
subsidized phone, they are required (i.e. forced) to enter a 1-2 year
contract to get it.
> The contract term is to recover the cost of the subsidy.
I call bullshit. The cost of any subsidy in most cases doesn't even
exist when said "subsidy" is supposedly given. As an example, I'll take
my wife's v276. VZW sells the phone for a "subsidized" price of $100 and
a $50 rebate (net total: $50.39 [extra .39 for stamp] and a several
month wait). No doubt, the phones probably cost them less than $50 in
bulk from the Chinese entities which assembled them. Out of the gate,
it's doubtful there's any cost to be recovered. Even if there is, it has
to be negligible and recouped after only a few months of service.
>
> >which more than pays for the phone several
> >times over.
>
> Only a small part of the monthly cost is applicable to the subsidy.
Citation please.
>
> >That and the fact that most of these phone are made by cheap
> >Chinese labor and don't people like Motorola anything close to what they
> >claim to be "full price" or even "subsidized" price.
>
> These sophisticated cell phones are actually bargains, a small fraction of
> what far less sophisticated cell phones used to cost.
Because cell phones never used to be made by cheap slave labor. They are
only cheaper because the companies with their logos on the phone have
closed down their western plants and fired their workers and gone with
cheap Chinese slave labor. The cost to the companies has gone down
dramatically. Most consumers think they're winning out with a cheap
Razr, Treo, or whatever....but the fact is..they aren't. The phone
manufacturers are not losing money, because cheap Chinese labor has
lowered their costs. In fact, they are making out big time...because
they've led the consumer to believe the consumer is a super deal...when
actually, the consumer is getting locked into a contract. The cell
manufacturers and carriers win. The consumer wins temporarily in a
cheaper priced product, but loses in the long run in being locked into a
contact and seeing yet another job shipped overseas.
> >It's not unreasonable to expect that when one pays for a phone...whether
> >its full price directly or subsidized initially, but more than full
> >price over time, that they get the features that phone is supposed to
> >have w/o having to pay extra.
>
> The phone isn't "supposed to have" anything.
Sure it is. If I go to Motorola's site and look up a specific phone, I
get a bragging list of all the features it has. If a reseller removes
many of them without clear and unmistakable ADVANCE notice that it
has...then the consumer is being had.
> Different phones have different
> features. Don't like the Verizon-branded feature set? Don't buy the phone.
I didn't. I'll stick with my VZW Kyocera 7135 which doesn't have any
features disabled and which does allow me to use data-over-cellular
features w/o having to pay extra for high-speed data services I do not
want or need, so you can take your inapplicable (as usual) quips
elsewhere.
--Mike
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> ...
> >The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
> >
> >But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
> >v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
> >profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
> >fully.
>
> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
equivalent feature sets?
--Mike
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> In <usenet-65F180....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
> 20:50:48 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Please direct us interested readers to the relevant section of VZW's
> >regulations which deem the tethering of devices (such as PDA's and cell
> >phones) to your VZW cell phone as "illicit."
>
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=planFirst&action=vie
> wPlanDetail&catId=329>
>
> Unlimited PDA/Smartphone and BlackBerry® Plans:
>
> Data sessions may be used for following purposes: (i) Internet
> browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to
> corporate intranets, email and individual productivity applications
> like customer relationship management, sales force and field service
> automation. Intranet access requires the BlackBerry Enterprise
> Server.). Unlimited plans are for individual use only and not for
> resale. The Unlimited plans cannot be used: (1) for any applications
> that tether the device to laptops, PCs, or other equipment for any
> purpose, (2) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music
> or games, (3) with server devices or with host computer applications
> other than the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, including, without
> limitation, Web camera posts or broadcasts, continuous jpeg file
> transfers, automatic data feeds, telemetry applications, automated
> functions or any other machine-to-machine applications, (4) as
> substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections.
I'm sorry, John. For some reason, I had the impression your first
language was English.
What you posted was a small blurb about unlimited PDA/smartphone and
BlackBerry plans data plans. It in no way addresses my question of
Verizon having any policy whatsoever restricting the use of tethered
devices to existing VZW calling plans.
Should I repeat my initial query in Spanish? Or would you refer I write
it out with crayons and give it to you in a picture book?
--Mike
John Navas
In <usenet-35696C....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:25:59 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>In article <PS2Nf.1009$J02...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The subscriber isn't being "forced" into anything.
>
>Sure they are.
Nope -- the subscriber is free to choose.
>If they want the what on the face appears to be a free or
>subsidized phone, they are required (i.e. forced) to enter a 1-2 year
>contract to get it.
Don't like that deal? Don't buy it.
>> The contract term is to recover the cost of the subsidy.
>
>I call bullshit. The cost of any subsidy in most cases doesn't even
>exist when said "subsidy" is supposedly given. As an example, I'll take
>my wife's v276. VZW sells the phone for a "subsidized" price of $100 and
>a $50 rebate (net total: $50.39 [extra .39 for stamp] and a several
>month wait). No doubt, the phones probably cost them less than $50 in
>bulk from the Chinese entities which assembled them.
Do you know that for a fact?
>Out of the gate,
>it's doubtful there's any cost to be recovered.
Of course there is.
>Even if there is, it has
>to be negligible and recouped after only a few months of service.
Don't like that deal? Don't buy it.
>> >which more than pays for the phone several
>> >times over.
>>
>> Only a small part of the monthly cost is applicable to the subsidy.
>
>Citation please.
Citation on what? The cost of service is patently the cost of service.
>> >That and the fact that most of these phone are made by cheap
>> >Chinese labor and don't people like Motorola anything close to what they
>> >claim to be "full price" or even "subsidized" price.
>>
>> These sophisticated cell phones are actually bargains, a small fraction of
>> what far less sophisticated cell phones used to cost.
>
>Because cell phones never used to be made by cheap slave labor. ...
And still aren't.
>> The phone isn't "supposed to have" anything.
>Sure it is.
Nope.
>If I go to Motorola's site and look up a specific phone, I
>get a bragging list of all the features it has.
It *can* have.
>If a reseller removes
>many of them without clear and unmistakable ADVANCE notice that it
>has...then the consumer is being had.
Nonsense. The consumer is free to choose. Don't like the deal? Don't buy
it.
>> Different phones have different
>> features. Don't like the Verizon-branded feature set? Don't buy the phone.
>
>I didn't. ...
So stop bitching -- you've just proved that Verizon isn't "forcing" anyone to
do anything.
John Navas
In <usenet-21373D....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:30:10 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>In article <m_2Nf.477987$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> >The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
>> >
>> >But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
>> >v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
>> >profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
>> >fully.
>>
>> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
>
>How can one really make an intelligent choice,
By checking *before* buying.
By checking *before* the end of the no risk trial period.
>when the vendor (in this
>case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
>in the phones they buy?
The vendor was forthcoming.
>It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
>phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
>discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
>reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
>equivalent feature sets?
Nonsense.
Jeremy
>
> How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
> case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> equivalent feature sets?
>
Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts lock
them to a term?
John Navas
In <usenet-C954CB....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:35:04 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>I'm sorry, John. For some reason, I had the impression your first
>language was English.
I'm sorry, Michael. For some reason, I had the impression you were an adult.
>What you posted was a small blurb about unlimited PDA/smartphone and
>BlackBerry plans data plans.
What I actually posted, in direct response to your question, were the terms
and conditions of the "Unlimited PDA/Smartphone and BlackBerryŽ Plans".
>It in no way addresses my question of
>Verizon having any policy whatsoever restricting the use of tethered
>devices to existing VZW calling plans.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Should I repeat my initial query in Spanish? Or would you refer I write
>it out with crayons and give it to you in a picture book?
Suit yourself. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
John Navas
In <wp3Nf.2338$DT.221@trnddc06> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:36 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
Yep. There's no real complaint.
Isaiah Beard
>>> Oh yeah! Money!
>> Last I checked, they ARE allowed to make money. And also, Verizon isn't
>> the only carrier that prohibits illicit tethering of their devices.
>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illicit
>>
>> illicit
>> adj.
>>
>> 1) Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.
I am aware of the definition of "illicit." That's why I used the term.
> Please direct us interested readers to the relevant section of VZW's
> regulations which deem the tethering of devices (such as PDA's and cell
> phones) to your VZW cell phone as "illicit."
The OP wants to tether without adding the data tethering add-on to his
plan using a RAZR. There are a number of instances where Verizon has
expressed that tethering a VCast phone without such a plan added to your
account is not permitted according to the terms of use.
I'm not in the business of doing your homework for you; it is your
responsibility to find out what terms and conditions govern your use of
the service. But, since you're clearly interested in being a contrarian
troll who will stick his fingers in his ears and deny, deny deny until I
point it for you (and probably eeven after I do), I'll do your homework
for you. Just this once.
The OP wants a RAZR, which is a VCAST (EVDO-enabled) phone. Under the
VCAST T's and C's:
"V CAST cannot be used: (1) for access to the Internet, intranets or
other data networks except as permitted via Get It Now and getWeb; (2)
for any applications that tether your phone to laptops, personal
computers or other devices for any purpose; (3) for uploading,
downloading or streaming of movies, music or games unless offered
through Get It Now; (4) for sustained, high bandwidth applications,
including, without limitation, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic
data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing;
and/or (5) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data
connections. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data
transferred, deny or terminate data services, without notice, for anyone
we believe is using the V CAST service in any manner prohibited above,
whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels or whose
usage exceeds reasonable levels. We also reserve the right to terminate
service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term."
Read it for yourself:
>
>> Pretty all the carriers impose some kind of restriction on tethering for
>> data without getting the appropriate price plan.
>
>
> Price plan has nothing to do with it.
Price plan has EVERYTHING to do with it, now more than ever.
> Data over cellular has been around
> for over a decade.
Yes it has, in various different forms, with various different ways of
billing for it. THAT is why price plan has everything to do with it.
> With VZW (and with at least one of the Borg'd
> carriers which gave rise to VZW (GTE Wireless), it has never been free
> and has always (and still does) count as cell minutes used.
No, that USED to be the case, and will be for people who cling to 1x
phones for a while. Going forward, new phones on BroadbandAccess will
be treated very differently.
The OP wasn't griping about a 1X phone, and therefore what you've been
doing doesn't apply to him. Please do try to keep up.
Considering you failed to be properly informed about what was being
discussed, the rest of your post is pretty much rubbish and will be
treated accordingly.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> The subscriber isn't being "forced" into anything.
> >
> >Sure they are.
>
> Nope -- the subscriber is free to choose.
They are free to choose whether to pay extra for services which have
been (and still are) free for uncrippled phones. However, if they need
those services, they are forced to pay extra (or not have them).
Get it?
> >If they want the what on the face appears to be a free or
> >subsidized phone, they are required (i.e. forced) to enter a 1-2 year
> >contract to get it.
>
> Don't like that deal? Don't buy it.
I didn't. Next!
>
> >> The contract term is to recover the cost of the subsidy.
> >
> >I call bullshit. The cost of any subsidy in most cases doesn't even
> >exist when said "subsidy" is supposedly given. As an example, I'll take
> >my wife's v276. VZW sells the phone for a "subsidized" price of $100 and
> >a $50 rebate (net total: $50.39 [extra .39 for stamp] and a several
> >month wait). No doubt, the phones probably cost them less than $50 in
> >bulk from the Chinese entities which assembled them.
>
> Do you know that for a fact?
Do you doubt it?
> >Out of the gate,
> >it's doubtful there's any cost to be recovered.
>
> Of course there is.
>
> >Even if there is, it has
> >to be negligible and recouped after only a few months of service.
>
> Don't like that deal? Don't buy it.
Again. I didn't. Next!
>
> >> >which more than pays for the phone several
> >> >times over.
> >>
> >> Only a small part of the monthly cost is applicable to the subsidy.
> >
> >Citation please.
>
> Citation on what? The cost of service is patently the cost of service.
Please excuse me, after years of seeing your screeds, I've only just a
message or two ago realized your first language is not English.
I'm asking for a citation indicating "Only a small part of the monthly
cost is applicable to the subsidy"
Should I put that question in a picture book with crayons for you as
well?
>
> >> >That and the fact that most of these phone are made by cheap
> >> >Chinese labor and don't people like Motorola anything close to what they
> >> >claim to be "full price" or even "subsidized" price.
> >>
> >> These sophisticated cell phones are actually bargains, a small fraction of
> >> what far less sophisticated cell phones used to cost.
> >
> >Because cell phones never used to be made by cheap slave labor. ...
>
> And still aren't.
So to John Navas, "Made in China" indicates top quality product made by
free workers at good wages?
>
> >> The phone isn't "supposed to have" anything.
>
> >Sure it is.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
>
> >If I go to Motorola's site and look up a specific phone, I
> >get a bragging list of all the features it has.
>
> It *can* have.
Nowhere on Motorola's site to they use the qualifier "can have." Their
phones are listed by the features they DO have. If carriers like VZW
choose to cripple features for their own financial gain...they should
let the consumer know about (in detail) the features they have crippled
BEFORE that consumer is gotten themselves locked into a long-term
contract.
>
> >If a reseller removes
> >many of them without clear and unmistakable ADVANCE notice that it
> >has...then the consumer is being had.
>
> Nonsense. The consumer is free to choose. Don't like the deal? Don't buy
> it.
Again for the English impaired. How can the consumer make an intelligent
choice if the carrier hasn't openly told them they have crippled the
equipment they intend to get???
> >> Different phones have different
> >> features. Don't like the Verizon-branded feature set? Don't buy the
> >> phone.
> >
> >I didn't. ...
>
> So stop bitching -- you've just proved that Verizon isn't "forcing" anyone to
> do anything.
No, I just happen to be using equipment which isn't crippled, because I
bought it from VZW before they started such practices. If this phone
breaks (its insured), they say they will give me an inferior Treo 650
and I will be forced (yes, that's right...forced) to pay an extra $50 to
use the same services I've been using with them for the last six years
since switching to the Bay Area B-side carrier. Not only that...but I
will have a lot less coverage, as the phone does not have AMPS
capability.
I'm just praying my phone doesn't break.
--Mike
Michael Wise
wrote:
> > How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
> > case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> > in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> > phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> > discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> > reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> > equivalent feature sets?
> >
>
>
> Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts lock
> them to a term?
Not that I know about. I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
of that.
--Mike
RobR
though so far they havent resorted to what Verizon has. In
fact when the 710 was announced, I was anxiously awaiting
it even though I was a Cingular customer. I wanted the
bluetooth to interface with my car PC and Cingular had
no bluetooth phones at the time. If Verizon hadn't crippled
the 710 the way they did, I'd be stuck with them now.
Anyway, I owned a 6620 which Cingular crippled in a
small way. It shipped from Nokia with the ability to
use MP3 ringtones. Cingular had Nokia cripple that
hoping that you'd buy ringtones from them (people
just figured out how to convert MP3 to a supported
format anyway).
I think T-Mobile is the cheapest and friendliest
company to techie types, but they also have the
worst coverage area.
"LiRM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:8bt8021i62m6jv2ll...@4ax.com...
>
> I've been on Verizon a long time. I went to check to update my phone
> the other day and found I was eligible to get a new RAZR for free.
>
> That was the good news.
> LiRM
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>...
> >What you posted was a small blurb about unlimited PDA/smartphone and
> >BlackBerry plans data plans.
>
> What I actually posted, in direct response to your question, were the terms
> and conditions of the "Unlimited PDA/Smartphone and BlackBerryŽ Plans".
Which again, for the English impaired, had nothing to do with what I
said.
>
> >It in no way addresses my question of
> >Verizon having any policy whatsoever restricting the use of tethered
> >devices to existing VZW calling plans.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Please don't try your worn out tactic again ("agree to disagree"). How
many times have you pulled that on so many n.g.'s over the years?
I very specifically spoke about their not being a VZW policy against my
(or for that matter, the OP's) usage of tethered devices with our
calling plans.
You come out and cite some specific Treo/smartphone data plan verbiage
as some sort of lame rebuttal against that, and then when called on it,
give out your tired "We'll just have to agree to disagree." exit?
No dice. Answer the specific question or points addressed. if you cannot
or will not...then maybe you should STFU.
>
> >Should I repeat my initial query in Spanish? Or would you refer I write
> >it out with crayons and give it to you in a picture book?
>
> Suit yourself. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
For the unaccustomed reader; that's John Navas-speak for I once again
will open I yap, but will not back up my statements when called on them.
--Mike
RobR
"Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:5r1Nf.61670
> Yes. I just find it funny/bizarre how people feel that
> something has been stolen from them. VZW is (at
> least for now) one of the few/only carriers that will
> activate phones not purchased through them.
I haven't finished reading this thread, so perhaps this was
already pointed out, but you don't need to activate
a phone with Cingular or T-Mobile. You just pop in
your already activated SIM card.
Isaiah Beard
> There must have been some issue with the implementation or configuration -- a
> decent Bluetooth implementation properly configured should pose no issue to
> EV-DO performance.
John, your professed area of expertise is GSM. You should attempt to
stick to that.
Any google search (remember, Google is your friend) will show you that
quite a few people are maxing out DUN at around 300-400kbps in the real
world. I myself witnessed similar results. On the other hand, a cable
tether onto EVDO easily netted a speed of 750-800kbps.
Even discarding real world results, and going strictly by Bluetooth
theoretical limits of about 768kbps when including connection overhead,
that speed still isn't sufficient to match the higher end of real-world
achieved EVDO Rev.0 speeds. And the situation will only get worse with
Rev. A and Rev. B.
>> In order to tether, you will need to get the same $60 plan (or actually,
>> it may still be $79 with Cingular) that you would have to get with
>> Verizon. The two carriers just have different philosophies about
>> enforcing this rule: Verizon locks down their phones to prevent it from
>> happening without you letting them know first, while Cingular waits for
>> you to violate the TOS and then simply sends you a four-figure bill at
>> the end of the month, charging you for every kilobyte you used.
>
> The upper limit of the charge, should Cingular decide to invoke that
> provision, would be Laptop Connect Unlimited, at most $80/month.
I saw firsthand, a Cingular bill in excess of $3,000 due to data
charges. Thankfully the bill belonged to someone else, not me. The
bill came in a large envelope and the whole thing was about an inch
thick, with every instance of data usage fully itemized.
If you don't have the plan to start off with, Cingular has no qualms
with charging you more than $80.
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>>> Oh yeah! Money!
> >> Last I checked, they ARE allowed to make money. And also, Verizon isn't
> >> the only carrier that prohibits illicit tethering of their devices.
> >
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illicit
> >>
> >> illicit
> >> adj.
> >>
> >> 1) Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.
>
> I am aware of the definition of "illicit." That's why I used the term.
Then you used it inappropriately, as tethering devices to VZW phone is
not unlawful, illegal, or against contract, or to use your word
"illicit."
>
>
> > Please direct us interested readers to the relevant section of VZW's
> > regulations which deem the tethering of devices (such as PDA's and cell
> > phones) to your VZW cell phone as "illicit."
>
> The OP wants to tether without adding the data tethering add-on to his
> plan using a RAZR. There are a number of instances where Verizon has
> expressed that tethering a VCast phone without such a plan added to your
> account is not permitted according to the terms of use.
Your response stated the tethering of devices to VZW phones; not
specifically RAZR phones...and VCast wasn't even mentioned.
Even so, can you please point us all to verifiable evidence that it is
"illicit" to tether a device with a RAZR with VZW>
>
> I'm not in the business of doing your homework for you; it is your
> responsibility to find out what terms and conditions govern your use of
> the service.
I see. So you're in the business of telling me what VZW does and does
not allow me to do...but you're not in the business of standing behind
your statements and backing them up with any sort of verifiable
evidence? Instead, you expect the reader to prove that the sky is blue?
It is not "illicit" to tether devices to VZW phones. If you cannot or
will not back up your claim that it is...then please don't bother
parroting it as fact in the first place.
> But, since you're clearly interested in being a contrarian
> troll who will stick his fingers in his ears and deny, deny deny until I
> point it for you (and probably eeven after I do), I'll do your homework
> for you. Just this once.
>
> The OP wants a RAZR, which is a VCAST (EVDO-enabled) phone. Under the
> VCAST T's and C's:
That's the phone the OP is talking about, but your response was not
limited to that phone. Perhaps you might consider not making broad
statements about VZW "tethering" policies...when in fact, you're only
talking about one phone or a small subset of phones?
>
> "V CAST cannot be used: (1) for access to the Internet, intranets or
> other data networks except as permitted via Get It Now and getWeb; (2)
> for any applications that tether your phone to laptops, personal
> computers or other devices for any purpose; (3) for uploading,
> downloading or streaming of movies, music or games unless offered
> through Get It Now; (4) for sustained, high bandwidth applications,
> including, without limitation, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic
> data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing;
> and/or (5) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data
> connections. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data
> transferred, deny or terminate data services, without notice, for anyone
> we believe is using the V CAST service in any manner prohibited above,
> whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels or whose
> usage exceeds reasonable levels. We also reserve the right to terminate
> service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term."
>
> Read it for yourself:
>
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/featurePopup?item=phoneFirst&featureT
> ype=phone&featureId=2043
Yes, I see that. Now please tell me how that applies to all VZW phones
and the tethered devices on them?
> > With VZW (and with at least one of the Borg'd
> > carriers which gave rise to VZW (GTE Wireless), it has never been free
> > and has always (and still does) count as cell minutes used.
>
> No, that USED to be the case, and will be for people who cling to 1x
> phones for a while.
It still seems to be the case with my
still-currently-manufactured-and-sold as new (although not by VZW) phone.
> Going forward, new phones on BroadbandAccess will
> be treated very differently.
For no other reason than to be a cash cow for the cell carriers.
> The OP wasn't griping about a 1X phone, and therefore what you've been
> doing doesn't apply to him. Please do try to keep up
I'll do you a favor: I'll "try to keep up" if you learn to phrase your
statements to where it is clear to the reader that they apply only to
one or a subset of phones. Deal?
> Considering you failed to be properly informed about what was being
> discussed, the rest of your post is pretty much rubbish and will be
> treated accordingly.
I promise to work on being informed if you promise to work on your
writing syntax. Deal?
--Mike
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
> >> case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> >> in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> >> phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> >> discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> >> reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> >> equivalent feature sets?
> >
> >Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts lock
> >them to a term?
>
> Yep. There's no real complaint.
John, please provide us with VZW's 14-day trial period notification.
--Mike
Bob the Printer
Verizon really doesn't care what YOU think, nor what most of us think. Nor
do I personally care what they have disabled on what phone. I bought my E815
for it's phone qualities, not to use as a modem.
Isaiah Beard
>> Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts lock
>> them to a term?
>
>
> Not that I know about. I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
> of that.
Jesus, Michael. While I'd normally agree with you that John Navas can't
comprehend English, it seems YOU'RE having a problem with reading
comprehension.
The 15 (not 14) day trial policy is advertised all over the place with
Verizon. And it's written down, too...
From the Verizon Wireless TOS (again, here I am doing your homework for
you):
"You can cancel (if you're a new customer) or go back to the conditions
of your former customer agreement (if you're already a customer) without
additional fees if you tell us (and return to us in good condition any
wireless phone you got from us with your new service) WITHIN 15 DAYS of
accepting. You'll still be responsible through that date for the new
service and any charges associated with it."
John Navas
In <usenet-7EA0C8....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:52:37 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>In article <jm3Nf.1086$J02...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Nope -- the subscriber is free to choose.
>
>They are free to choose whether to pay extra for services which have
>been (and still are) free for uncrippled phones.
The term "crippled" phone is a meaningless pejorative. The phone is what it
is. Different phones have different features. Choose the phone with the
feature set that best fits your needs and budget. Simple.
My Cingular-branded V551 doesn't have Class 10 EGPRS(EDGE), but that doesn't
mean it's "crippled" -- that just means it doesn't have that feature. Could
it have that feature? Sure, but then it wouldn't be a Cingular-branded V551.
Had I needed/wanted Class 10 EGPRS, then I would have gotten a different
phone. Simple. No coercion.
>However, if they need
>those services, they are forced to pay extra (or not have them).
No more than then are being "forced" to pay a given price for Starbucks
coffee. Don't like the deal? Don't buy it.
>Get it?
I do get it. What I don't get is how anyone is being "forced" to do anything
by cellular carriers.
>> >> The contract term is to recover the cost of the subsidy.
>> >
>> >I call bullshit. The cost of any subsidy in most cases doesn't even
>> >exist when said "subsidy" is supposedly given. As an example, I'll take
>> >my wife's v276. VZW sells the phone for a "subsidized" price of $100 and
>> >a $50 rebate (net total: $50.39 [extra .39 for stamp] and a several
>> >month wait). No doubt, the phones probably cost them less than $50 in
>> >bulk from the Chinese entities which assembled them.
>>
>> Do you know that for a fact?
>
>Do you doubt it?
I seriously doubt your economic analysis, not that it's at all relevant.
>> Citation on what? The cost of service is patently the cost of service.
>
>Please excuse me, after years of seeing your screeds, I've only just a
>message or two ago realized your first language is not English.
>
>[SNIP]
That's it. I'm done. Whine at someone else.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >In article <m_2Nf.477987$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> >The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
> >> >
> >> >But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
> >> >v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
> >> >profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
> >> >fully.
> >>
> >> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
> >
> >How can one really make an intelligent choice,
>
> By checking *before* buying.
Checking what? Asking the carrier: "Excuse me, did you intentionally and
for financial reasons only, cripple any features on this fancy new
"subsidized" phone you wish to lock me into two years with?"?
When you go to buy a new computer, do you ask the dealer whether they
have had any features of that computer crippled for nothing other than
financial gain? Did think so. If they did, would you expect them to tell
you that up front? Yes? Case closed.
> By checking *before* the end of the no risk trial period.
Which trial period (VZW) is that (citation please)? How is the existence
of a trial period (if it even exists) communicated to the consumer?
> >when the vendor (in this
> >case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> >in the phones they buy?
>
> The vendor was forthcoming.
Really? Tell me, Mr. Navas...how was/is VZW forthcoming about features
they have had crippled on the phone they buy (sources please)?
>
> >It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> >phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> >discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> >reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> >equivalent feature sets?
>
> Nonsense.
"Agree to disagree", "Nonsense" all tired retreats from Navas' worn-out
playbook. Either answer the questions your responses generate...or don't
bother participating.
--Mike
John Navas
In <usenet-8C148E....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
Then you aren't paying attention.
>I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
>of that.
Baloney.
We will gladly accept returns or make exchanges on all wireless
merchandise purchased from Verizon Wireless.
Satisfaction Guarantee
You may terminate service for any reason within 15 days of
activation. ...
Return and Service Termination
You may return any or all of your merchandise for any reason within
15 days of purchase.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> > How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
> >> > case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> >> > in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> >> > phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> >> > discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> >> > reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> >> > equivalent feature sets?
> >>
> >> Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts
> >> lock
> >> them to a term?
> >
> >Not that I know about.
>
> Then you aren't paying attention.
I thought you just five minutes ago said "That's it. I'm done. Whine
at someone else."??
What am I supposed to be paying attention to? I haven't ever signed a
VZW contract. I was with GTW Wireless...which carried over to VZW since
2000 (w/C1 before thar). At no time have I ever been told by them them
(verbally or in writing) that I have a 14 (or 15) day trial period.
I don't deny that such a trial period may or may not now exist: I just
asked for evidence that it does as long as evidence that such
information is prominently communicated to the customer.
>
> >I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
> >of that.
>
> Baloney.
Really, given that you're a Cingular user, how would you know what VZW
reps tell the public?
>
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?textName=RETURN_POLICY&jspName=
> footer/returnPolicy.jsp&textName=RETURN_POLICY&jspName=footer/returnPolicy.jsp
> >
>
> We will gladly accept returns or make exchanges on all wireless
> merchandise purchased from Verizon Wireless.
>
> Satisfaction Guarantee
> You may terminate service for any reason within 15 days of
> activation. ...
>
> Return and Service Termination
> You may return any or all of your merchandise for any reason within
> 15 days of purchase.
Great, so you found a snippet on their web site (after specifically
looking for it). Now tell me how VZW reps convey this info to customers.
--Mike
John Navas
In <1209ipm...@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:14:00 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>> There must have been some issue with the implementation or configuration -- a
>> decent Bluetooth implementation properly configured should pose no issue to
>> EV-DO performance.
>
>John, your professed area of expertise is GSM.
I profess nothing of the kind.
>You should attempt to
>stick to that.
Thanks, but I'm quite comfortable with what I wrote.
>Any google search (remember, Google is your friend) will show you that
>quite a few people are maxing out DUN at around 300-400kbps in the real
>world. I myself witnessed similar results. On the other hand, a cable
>tether onto EVDO easily netted a speed of 750-800kbps.
DUN = Dial-Up Networking (regardless of connection method), not Bluetooth,
which is capable of much higher speeds. I likewise know of many people that
have complained about low DUN speeds on EGPRS(EDGE), but I also know that's
due to (1) misconfiguration of DUN or (2) wireless implementation issues.
>Even discarding real world results, and going strictly by Bluetooth
>theoretical limits of about 768kbps when including connection overhead,
The maximum unidirectional raw data rate is about 723 kbps using five-slot
packets in one direction and one-slot packets in the other direction. ...
The higher layers of the protocol stack use some of the bandwidth for packet
headers and other overhead, so the maximum data rate at the application level
is closer to 650 kbps.
<http://www.oi-us.com/service_additions/throughput_docpage.html>
>that speed still isn't sufficient to match the higher end of real-world
>achieved EVDO Rev.0 speeds. ...
It's nonetheless sufficiently fast to provide excellent performance.
>> The upper limit of the charge, should Cingular decide to invoke that
>> provision, would be Laptop Connect Unlimited, at most $80/month.
>
>I saw firsthand, a Cingular bill in excess of $3,000 due to data
>charges. Thankfully the bill belonged to someone else, not me. The
>bill came in a large envelope and the whole thing was about an inch
>thick, with every instance of data usage fully itemized.
That's what happens if/when all data packages are removed from the account.
>If you don't have the plan to start off with, Cingular has no qualms
>with charging you more than $80.
That wasn't what I said. Read my quote above more carefully, and see
<https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-account/legal/service-agreement.jsp>:
4. Rates. Your Service rates and other charges and conditions for each
Identifier or Device are described in your Sales Information. If you
lose your eligibility for a particular Rate Plan, we may change your
Rate Plan upon prior notice to you. IF YOU MISREPRESENT YOUR
ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY RATE PLAN, YOU AGREE TO PAY US THE ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER THE MOST FAVORABLE RATE PLAN
FOR WHICH YOU ARE ELIGIBLE. ... [emphasis added]
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> Michael Wise wrote:
>
> >> Don't these customers have a 14-day trial period before their contracts
> >> lock
> >> them to a term?
> >
> >
> > Not that I know about. I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
> > of that.
>
> Jesus, Michael. While I'd normally agree with you that John Navas can't
> comprehend English, it seems YOU'RE having a problem with reading
> comprehension.
>
> The 15 (not 14) day trial policy is advertised all over the place with
> Verizon. And it's written down, too..
I didn't say it didn't exist. I asked to show: a) that it does and b)
how VZW conveys that info.
Here's a question. Given that I've been a B-side carrier customer for
numerous years before VZW even existed and like many others was
transitioned into the conglamoration os acquired companies which became
to be known as VZW, how do trial policies apply to me or any of the tens
or hundreds of thousands of VZW customers like me...or do they just
apply to new accounts?
>
> From the Verizon Wireless TOS (again, here I am doing your homework for
> you):
>
> "You can cancel (if you're a new customer) or go back to the conditions
> of your former customer agreement (if you're already a customer) without
> additional fees if you tell us (and return to us in good condition any
> wireless phone you got from us with your new service) WITHIN 15 DAYS of
> accepting. You'll still be responsible through that date for the new
> service and any charges associated with it."
>
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?textName=CUSTOMER_AGREEMENT&jspN
> ame=footer/customerAgreement.jsp
I see, so that means if my Kyocera 7135 breaks, I can cancel the
agreement with any Treo 650 replacement VZW might want to push on me and
VZW is compelled to honor my previous agreement (no extra data fees for
slow data-over-cellular) with a like-capable phone (dual-band, tri-mode,
Palm OS, clamshell)?
--Mike
--Mike
Michael Wise
wrote:
> Just FYI, Cingular has been known to cripple firmware as well,
> though so far they havent resorted to what Verizon has.
And the only reason for that is that Cingular's overall nationwide
network coverage is vastly inferior to VZW's. When and if they ever
equal or surpass VZW's coverage, I expect VZW's current pricing tactics
would be soon to follow.
> I think T-Mobile is the cheapest and friendliest
> company to techie types, but they also have the
> worst coverage area.
Bingo. The crappy coverage carriers always have the most extras these
days.
--Mike
Mike Levy
wrote:
>In article <jm3Nf.1086$J02...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
VZW lays it out in the literature what IS and ISN'T available for a
phone. My BT-capable E815 is clearly listed as "hands-free/Headset
only" on the VZW site. Many, if not all, of the other BT phones have
the same notations. Find one that doesn't and link it.
Isaiah Beard
> Your response stated the tethering of devices to VZW phones; not
> specifically RAZR phones...and VCast wasn't even mentioned.
No, see, you incorrectly inferred that from my post. The topic of
discussion, which was set by the OP, was about his RAZR and why he
couldn't connect because Verizon crippled the DUN capability. I was
explaining that this is VZW's way of making him adhere to the
restrictions that VZW applies.
You, on the other hand, somehow took that as some kind of affront to
that self-important little universe that you live in, where you think
that everyone on usenet is talking specifically and only to YOU.
>> I'm not in the business of doing your homework for you; it is your
>> responsibility to find out what terms and conditions govern your use of
>> the service.
>
>
> I see. So you're in the business of telling me what VZW does and does
> not allow me to do...
Again, I wasn't talking to YOU. I was talking to the OP, until you
decided to "contribute" your contrarian little point of view, which
contained an incorrect assumption that EVERYONE on VZW could do MOU.
> but you're not in the business of standing behind
> your statements and backing them up with any sort of verifiable
> evidence?
I did.
> Instead, you expect the reader to prove that the sky is blue?
I expect someone who challenges information posted to come up with their
own facts. I've posted links to official policies, and quoted T's and
C's, which spell everything out VERY clearly. Have you? No. Instead
you're pulling a John Navas, butting into threads with no useful
information, spewing about YOUR experiences, and deciding that your
limited experience and knowledge is a blanket universal rule that MUST
apply to everyone else.
No wonder you and Navas get along so well.
> It is not "illicit" to tether devices to VZW phones.
It WASN'T illicit to do so as long as you had MOU. It IS illicit for
all new phone models going forward, including the RAZR. This is the
second time I've had to say this to you. Do you get it now? Can you
comprehend this? Apparently not.
> If you cannot or
> will not back up your claim that it is...then please don't bother
> parroting it as fact in the first place.
Look, I've backed up my claim. You on the other hand, refuse to act
like an adult and clearly have nothing better to do than troll and
hijack threads all day. I WISH I had that much time on my hands, but
see, being an informed person, I tend to be in demand to perform other
obligations, and thus I have other things to do.
>> But, since you're clearly interested in being a contrarian
>> troll who will stick his fingers in his ears and deny, deny deny until I
>> point it for you (and probably eeven after I do), I'll do your homework
>> for you. Just this once.
>>
>> The OP wants a RAZR, which is a VCAST (EVDO-enabled) phone. Under the
>> VCAST T's and C's:
>
> That's the phone the OP is talking about, but your response was not
> limited to that phone.
I was replying to the OP, and explaining why Verizon insists on
disabling his phone's DUN until such time as he gets the appropriate
account add-on to allow tethering. WHY would my post have nothing to do
with his thread? I'm not you; I don't hijack threads and take them
HORRIBLY off the topic at hand.
> Perhaps you might consider not making broad
> statements about VZW "tethering" policies...
Interesting comment. Maybe you should practice what you preach,
considering it was you who busted in here claiming that I was ALL wrong,
and EVERYONE on Verizon can tether.
And perhaps you should refrain from assuming that every usenet post in
this newsgroup MUST always apply to you. You're just not that important
in the grand scheme of things. Accept it, and move on.
> when in fact, you're only
> talking about one phone or a small subset of phones?
I see 15 phones and devices on the VZW website for which these rules
apply, hardly a "small subset." Especially considering that most if not
all data-enabled phones and devices going forward on VZW are going to
have these rules apply.
But that's not the issue. I was replying to *OP* about *HIS* phone and
*HIS* experiences. *Not you*.
> Yes, I see that. Now please tell me how that applies to all VZW phones
> and the tethered devices on them?
I've already done my show and tell. Now it's your turn. YOU show ME
that ALL phones can tether with MOU, like you claimed when you first
burst in to the thread.
>> Going forward, new phones on BroadbandAccess will
>> be treated very differently.
>
> For no other reason than to be a cash cow for the cell carriers.
The money is nice, but that's not the only reason. Verizon was the last
carrier to assume (wrongly) that you could treat a packet data network
like a circuit-switched application, and bill accordingly, and have it
all come out okay. With EVDO, it just doesn't work that way, and those
few sorry souls who have actually tried to apply MOU to an EVDO phone
has learned that the hard way. The phones connect to the network often,
even when users think they're not in use, and when you attempt to bill
by the minute, it becomes clear that those minutes get used up pretty
quickly, and then some. Especially when some of the "Always on"
applications (i.e. push e-mail) get used.
The solution was to offer a $10 a month ($15 with music clips) "all you
can eat" pack that offers unlimited data "airtime" with the caveat that
the "airtime" must be used on the PHONE, not on any tethered device.
You can't pay $10 a month and get the equivalent speed on a DSL or cable
line; why would anyone reasonably expect that they should be able to do
so on a much more bandwidth-scarce cellular network?
>> The OP wasn't griping about a 1X phone, and therefore what you've been
>> doing doesn't apply to him. Please do try to keep up
>
>
> I'll do you a favor: I'll "try to keep up" if you learn to phrase your
> statements to where it is clear to the reader that they apply only to
> one or a subset of phones. Deal?
Hey, if you suffer from megalomania and just assume everything applies
to you, I can't help that. As I said earlier: you're just not that
important. Make a deal with yourself to accept that.
Isaiah Beard
>> Even discarding real world results, and going strictly by Bluetooth
>> theoretical limits of about 768kbps when including connection overhead,
>
> The maximum unidirectional raw data rate is about 723 kbps using five-slot
> packets in one direction and one-slot packets in the other direction. ...
> The higher layers of the protocol stack use some of the bandwidth for packet
> headers and other overhead, so the maximum data rate at the application level
> is closer to 650 kbps.
>
Thank you John, for proving my point for me. ;) Again, not sufficient
for EVDO.
John Navas
In <1209lh3...@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:28 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other cases).
Isaiah Beard
>>>> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
>>> How can one really make an intelligent choice,
>> By checking *before* buying.
>
> Checking what? Asking the carrier: "Excuse me, did you intentionally and
> for financial reasons only, cripple any features on this fancy new
> "subsidized" phone you wish to lock me into two years with?"?
Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all spelled out for you:
http://dts.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_Handsets.pdf
Michael, you really need to stop acting like an uninformed ass. Really,
I'm tired of being your personal Google.
Isaiah Beard
>> The 15 (not 14) day trial policy is advertised all over the place with
>> Verizon. And it's written down, too..
>
>
> I didn't say it didn't exist.
Oh, so you knew it existed? So you ARE being a troll, just for the hell
of it then?
> I asked to show: a) that it does and b)
> how VZW conveys that info.
Done, and done. Now, shut your pie hole.
Michael Wise
Mike Levy <blue...@gmail.com> wrote:
Amazing what how a lawsuit/settlement can compel people to be somewhat
forthcoming...however obtuse.
Why do you suppose they don't change the wording to: "all of this
phone's Bluetooth capabilities, with the exception of
hands-free/headesets, intentionally disabled by the manufacture for
financial reasons only by demand of Verizon Wireless."? Why do you
suppose that is?
The first thing I see advertised in VZW's features column for the E815
is Bluetooth. Given that the only Bluetooth capabilities the phone
apparently has are for headsets and hands free kits (with all others
being intentionally disabled), why do you suppose VZW prominently (as
its first bragging point) touts Bluetooth???
VZW's detail view description of the phone also touts "Bluetooth (tm)
wireless technology" with no disclaimer that most of the Bluetooth (tm)
wireless technology capabilities are intentionally disabled.
They do have a disclaimer:
"The E815 supports Bluetooth Profiles for wireless headsets, hands-free
accessories."
The disclaimer merely states that it supports wireless headsets and
hands-free kits. Is bragging about what you support the same as telling
the customer hat you have had the Bluetooth (tm) profiles intentionally
crippled not to support?
It (the disclaimer) goes on to say:
"It does not support all object exchange (OBEX) profiles."
Which to you and me means something (after getting to the fine print).
To John Q. Customer who has a new Bluetooth-capable car and laptop, it
doesn't mean smack.
Why do you suppose that disclaimer does not read:
"All Bluetooth capabilities other than headsets and hand free kits
intentionally disabled"
The disclaimer ends with a VZW Bluetooth link
(http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/splash/bluetooth.jsp) where they
brag about a "new level" of wireless communications....which turns out
to be just wireless headsets and hand free kits...with no mention of
what Bluetooth really is, how the manufacturers engineered Bluetooth in
the phones to operate, and how VZW made the manufacturers disable that
"new level" of wireless communications out of the phone only so that VZW
could make money selling the same functionality for extra add-on prices.
Seems to be that if features of the phone are crippled, the phone should
be sold at a "crippled" price w/o the mandate of an extended contract.
Alas, we're back to fact the VZW has the best network, so they can get
away with doing whatever they want. We're not going to change that.
--Mike
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> Michael Wise wrote:
>
> >> The 15 (not 14) day trial policy is advertised all over the place with
> >> Verizon. And it's written down, too..
> >
> >
> > I didn't say it didn't exist.
>
> Oh, so you knew it existed?
No, I just asked for some sort of evidence to show if it did.
> So you ARE being a troll, just for the hell
> of it then?
Pot, kettle, black.
> > I asked to show: a) that it does and b)
> > how VZW conveys that info.
>
> Done, and done. Now, shut your pie hole.
I will if you promise to go back to your AOL account.
--Mike
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> >>>> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
> >>> How can one really make an intelligent choice,
> >> By checking *before* buying.
> >
> > Checking what? Asking the carrier: "Excuse me, did you intentionally and
> > for financial reasons only, cripple any features on this fancy new
> > "subsidized" phone you wish to lock me into two years with?"?
>
>
> Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all spelled out for you:
>
> http://dts.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_Handsets.pdf
I see, so the expectation is for consumers to expect that phones they
have their eye on might, in some fashion, be crippled. Therefor, they
are expected to conduct Internet research to verify whether or not the
phone they want has been crippled to satisfy an idea which they should
have had no reasonable expectation to have in the first place?
In your world, should the entire consumer audience Google everything
they're thinking of purchasing to see if its been crippled in any way.
Since you're Mr. Google expert with your security-sieve OS, maybe you do
the public a service and trumpet your gratis expert Google-searching
services?
--Mike
Mike Levy
>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:06 GMT, "Quick"
><quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>LiRM wrote:
>>
>>> get a new RAZR for free.
>>
>>> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile
>>> that allows the phone to function as a modem.
>>
>>> Oh yeah! Money!
>>>
>>> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they
>>> can get a quarter out of. Like being able to transfer
>>> mp3's. Or pictures. Or instead of just using my minutes
>>> to connect to the net - like I have done literally for
>>> the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass for it
>>> now.
>>
>>There you have it. They *want* you to pay. You have
>>to do that on your own free will. Apparently others are.
>>
>>> And yes, I have done this for 7 years. .
>>
>>> Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the
>>> verge of losing a customer that's been one for YEARS.
>>
>>Sounds like you were a big spender.
>>
>>> But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a
>>> Bluetooth profile when it's one of the primary reasons
>>> Bluetooth was developed?
>>
>>I'm still reading this over and over... Is this some sort of
>>technology blasphemy? Are you a BT disciple or something?
>
>Not at all. But name for me, if you can, one viable wireless standard
>that would allow me to connect my PDA (or a laptop) to my phone to
>make a net connection.
>
>>
>>> I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place -
>>> with some of the people in that meeting realizing just
>>> how ludicrous this is. I can guarantee you that they
>>> must have been looking at the mensa candidate who
>>> came up with this idea as if they had literally lost their mind.
>>
>>He was lucky they didn't throw him to the ground and
>>brand "BT" into his forehead.
>>
>>> I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to
>>> believe this myself. In spite of all the insanity that
>>> followed the v710's lawsuit about this very issue. you
>>> guys go ahead and kill this part of the profile anyway?
>>
>>No confusion now. "NO BT modem"
>>
>>> Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do
>>> whatcha gotta do to make a buck and all, but there must
>>> be guys at Cingular, Sprint, you name it - laughing this
>>> asses off over this - and probably will be for months.
>>
>>Thanks for the heads up. I'll dump my stock right away.
>>
>>> For people like me who probably use their phones more as
>>> a device to connect to the net then they do talk, you are
>>> literally forcing people to walk away.
>>
>>Lets see.... 33+ million and maybe 10K left?
>
>I know there are bunches of people out there who have jumped on the
>Treo bandwagons, but that doesn't suit me as I don't enjoy doing clown
>tricks like having to talk into my phone while also using a keyboard
>to take notes on my PDA. And believe it or not - there really are
>some of us out here who actually use applications like real web
>browsers, FTP apps, real POP or IMAP mail applications, terminal
>services and other nifty "toy" programs that make carrying around a
>PDA function damn close to what you can do with a laptop.
>
>But we are, as you say, a dwindling breed. Markets *do* drive where
>technology goes and in this case it's vcast and AOL IM, and so on. Not
>that there is anything wrong with that, but I stand by what I've said.
>In fact, you just reinforced my case. If we *are* such a small
>minority, why remove that aspect of a profile when one can simply
>leave it alone.
>
>>
>>> This will go down in cellular history as one of the
>>> biggest fuck ups ever implemented.
>>
>>Certainly right up there with the savings and loan
>>collapse, Enron, ...
>>
>>> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other
>>> phone to get this to work, but fuck that. If you're a
>>> Verizon customer and *that's* what you're doing to get
>>> parts of your phone working at some point you have to ask
>>> yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself through all
>>> this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
>>> that forces you to go through that to make your phone
>>> work the way it was designed to in the first place? (In
>>> other words what Moto giveth you, Verizon taketh away.
>>> lol. Fuck them).
>>
>>Actually Moto taketh away. VZW doesn't do phone
>>software/firmware.
>
>I didn't say they did, birdbrain. But what they *do* do is dictate to
>Motorola what to leave in and out of these profiles, which is why
>you'll see the same phone with this profile fully intact in the
>Cingular flavor.
>
Apples/Oranges. The CDMA Razr and GSM Razr are VERY different, even
if the case looks the same. It's not like Cingular's exclusivity on
it ran out and they magically started appearing in VZW stores, some
major re-engineering had to be done to get CDMA in that package.
>
>>
>>> Sorry. I just don't get it.
>>
>>You really don't...
>>
>>> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from
>>> Cingular. Then it's decision time. Send it back to
>>> Cingular or keep it and make the switch. Maybe Verizon
>>> will shake some marbles loose during this period and
>>> realize what a stupid move this is.
>>
>>Give them some time. I'm sure they have passed your
>>address to the Moto CEO and they're making you a gold
>>plated, custom Razor with every wireless technology
>>currently known to man.
>
>The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
>
>But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
>v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
>profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
>fully. They just lost a lawsuit over it.
>
>But that doesn't make you any less of a dickhead for jumping on my ass
>for what amounts to a still stupid (and greedy) move on Verizon's
>part.
>
>>
>>> Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not
>>> everyone gets to fix them. Do the right thing and give
>>> back what you stupidly took away.
>>
>>
Mike Levy
wrote:
>In article <2o3Nf.1090$J02...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
14-day WFG, return the phone for a refund within 14 days, only paying
for minutes used.
Also, VZW clearly states on the site that the BT is not fully
functional.
I got this:
"*The RAZR V3c supports the Wireless Headset & Handsfree Bluetooth
Profiles. It does not support Bluetooth object transfer (OBEX)
profiles. Accessories sold separately. See Bluetooth for details."
directly from the VZW site for the Razr. I think the OBEX profile
encompasses the DUN capabilities.
VZW's FAQ also makes mention that not all BT profiles are included in
every device.
Also, going to ANY BT-capable phone, you can follow the links to get
to a capabilities chart, found here:
http://dts.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_Handsets.pdf Full research of a
product would include checking out the links provided on a page for a
product, in this case it was found on the carrier's product
description page for the device.
Closing case, YOU obviously haven't done ALL of your homework if you
think VZW isn't disclosing this information.
Quick
>
> We may not like it, but that's good ol' legal American
> corporate greed in action.
This is truly inane... You are pretty well off. Evidenced
by the fact that you can even afford a luxury like a cell
phone. I think we can all say that you are greedy scum
for not sharing some of that excess wealth with those less
fortunate.
-Quick
Quick
Uhh, hello? They tell you what you get. It's very simple.
You shouldn't assume anything more than that.
"phone does NOT include tooth pick, screw driver, mirror,
detachable stereo speakers, or supplementary brain
for those missing part of their own or anything else that
you might feel entitled to or owed by corporate America."
How's that?
-Quick
Michael Wise
"Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > We may not like it, but that's good ol' legal American
> > corporate greed in action.
>
> This is truly inane... You are pretty well off. Evidenced
> by the fact that you can even afford a luxury like a cell
> phone.
As an IT/Networking Professional, a cell phone stopped being a luxury
and became a necessity to me about ten years ago. The companies I've
worked for have no problem buying me whatever cell phone I need...given
that I generally will deal with all the staff cellular stuff anyway. It
wouldn't matter if they didn't, as for me its a business necessity as
are smart phone and data-over-cellular usage I use with it.
> I think we can all say that you are greedy scum
> for not sharing some of that excess wealth with those less
> fortunate.
It isn't exactly unearned and uneeded wealth. 15 years in everywhere
from the trenches to management of IT, it has proven to be a money-saver
and business necessity. The first time I'm able to be mobile enough to
take a 1:00 AM call for from a $150/hr client with a down mail server,
my phone and my month's cell bill are paid for.
--Mike
Michael Wise
"Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
"Hi, Mr. Quick, I've got 2005 BMW 325Ci. Its got only 1,0000 miles and
is in pristine shape and it's only $5000."
You pay the man, drive off the lot. Two days later, you discover the car
was salvaged and much of the parts were cheaper replacements." You take
it back to complain.
"Well, Mr. Quick, we just told you were getting a near-new BMW, we
didn't tell you it wasn't all BMW parts. You really shouldn't anything
more than said."
>
> "phone does NOT include tooth pick, screw driver, mirror,
> detachable stereo speakers,...
Bogus comparison. Bluetooth does not ring up any images of "tooth pick,
screw driver, mirror, detachable stereo speakers". People can't miss and
bitch about that which they had no reasonable expectation to be getting
in the first place. I think most people who even know WTF Bluetooth is
would conjure up a picture of headsets (check), hands free kits (check),
and PDA/peripheral connectivity ( a big uncheck), and those fancy car
locks for cars rich people buy.
--Mike
Quick
> In article
> <Hm5Nf.55323$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> We may not like it, but that's good ol' legal American
>>> corporate greed in action.
>>
>> This is truly inane... You are pretty well off.
>> Evidenced by the fact that you can even afford a luxury
>> like a cell phone.
>
>
> As an IT/Networking Professional, a cell phone stopped
> being a luxury and became a necessity to me about ten
> years ago. The companies I've worked for have no problem
> buying me whatever cell phone I need...given that I
> generally will deal with all the staff cellular stuff
> anyway. It wouldn't matter if they didn't, as for me its
> a business necessity as are smart phone and
> data-over-cellular usage I use with it.
That is their cost of doing business. It's not a necessity.
Again, you feel some sort of misguided entitlement and
now you've transferred that to your employers.
>
>> I think we can all say that you are greedy scum
>> for not sharing some of that excess wealth with those
>> less fortunate.
>
> It isn't exactly unearned and uneeded wealth.
Ahhh, I see, *your* profit and wealth and *your*
employer's profit and wealth is justified but other
company's is not?
> 15 years in everywhere from the trenches to
> management of IT, it has proven to be a money-saver
> and business necessity. The first time I'm able to
> be mobile enough to take a 1:00 AM call for from
> a $150/hr client with a down mail server,
> my phone and my month's cell bill are paid for.
See above about "cost of doing business".
-Quick
Scott
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:mD4Nf.478473$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other cases).
Translation- John was just found to be wrong. He is incapable of admitting
it.
Larry
$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
> From: "Quick"
Damn! You musta been out to lunch! Your attack was almost an HOUR late!
Mike Levy
wrote:
>In article <1209lms...@corp.supernews.com>,
I think that anyone that really cares about these features likely
will. These people are likely somewhat tech-savvy and will want to
know what works and what doesn't.
You sound like some of the people I support (PC support). The
computers we deploy have BT as an option. The icon is on ALL of the
computers but the company I support doesn't get that option. Are we
expected to tell people it's not there when we deploy the computer to
them? I'd say 75% of our user base doesn't care about that option.
50% of our user base has the frame of mind of "the computer can do it,
you MUST support it and I want it to work", even if our contract tells
us we don't support the feature. The IrDA port is one example.
Bob Fry
LiRM> I've been on Verizon a long time. I went to check to update
LiRM> my phone the other day and found I was eligible to get a new
LiRM> RAZR for free.
LiRM> That was the good news.
LiRM> Having been fooled before (getting a v710 only to find OBEX
LiRM> not enabled), I went to the Bluetooth FAQ only to find they
LiRM> have - get this - disabled ALL parts of the Bluetooth
LiRM> profile that has allowed me in the past to pair with Palm
LiRM> Zire to use the phone as a modem.
<Remainder of rant deleted>
so, why not just buy your own RAZR that's not disabled? Oh, you want
someone to give it to you free without any gimmicks. But you can't
find anybody to give you what you want. Hey, I want a million dollars
but nobody will give that to me either, boo-hoo so sad...
Ronald L
Adios pal
Ron
"LiRM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:8bt8021i62m6jv2ll...@4ax.com...
>
> I've been on Verizon a long time. I went to check to update my phone
> the other day and found I was eligible to get a new RAZR for free.
>
> That was the good news.
>
> Having been fooled before (getting a v710 only to find OBEX not
> enabled), I went to the Bluetooth FAQ only to find they have - get
> this - disabled ALL parts of the Bluetooth profile that has allowed me
> in the past to pair with Palm Zire to use the phone as a modem.
>
> I couldn't believe what I was reading.
>
> I called in to verify this with a few different support reps and they
> confirmed it.
>
> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
> the phone to function as a modem.
>
> Are they out of their minds?
>
> Seriously.
>
> They have lost it all together.
>
> Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
> why on Earth would they do such a thing?
>
> Oh yeah! Money!
>
> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
> quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
> instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
> done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
> for it now.
>
> And yes, I have done this for 7 years. My first device that this
> worked with a Visor Deluxe. Granted, it required a cable, but it
> worked.
>
> I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
> excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers. Since my
> phones have been trimode's, I have gotten service in the boonies at
> times when no one else could. No drop offs. At this - they are
> excellent at. Give credit where credit is due.
>
> Alas, I have an order in for a RAZR from Cingular whilst we speak -
> which has the entire Bluetooth profile enabled.
>
> Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the verge of
> losing a customer that's been one for YEARS. Since you took over
> whoever you took over to begin with when you first started. Been with
> you guys since day 1.
>
> I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
> 20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
> do it for Christs'sake).
>
> But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a Bluetooth
> profile when it's one of the primary reasons Bluetooth was developed?
>
> I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place - with some of
> the people in that meeting realizing just how ludicrous this is. I
> can guarantee you that they must have been looking at the mensa
> candidate who came up with this idea as if they had literally lost
> their mind.
>
> I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to believe this
> myself. In spite of all the insanity that followed the v710's lawsuit
> about this very issue. you guys go ahead and kill this part of the
> profile anyway?
>
> Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do whatcha gotta do
> to make a buck and all, but there must be guys at Cingular, Sprint,
> you name it - laughing this asses off over this - and probably will be
> for months.
>
> For people like me who probably use their phones more as a device to
> connect to the net then they do talk, you are literally forcing people
> to walk away.
>
> This will go down in cellular history as one of the biggest fuck ups
> ever implemented.
>
> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other phone to get
> this to work, but fuck that. If you're a Verizon customer and
> *that's* what you're doing to get parts of your phone working at some
> point you have to ask yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself
> through all this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
> that forces you to go through that to make your phone work the way it
> was designed to in the first place? (In other words what Moto giveth
> you, Verizon taketh away. lol. Fuck them).
>
> Sorry. I just don't get it.
>
> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from Cingular. Then
> it's decision time. Send it back to Cingular or keep it and make the
> switch. Maybe Verizon will shake some marbles loose during this
> period and realize what a stupid move this is.
>
> Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone gets
> to fix them. Do the right thing and give back what you stupidly took
> away.
>
> Regards,
>
> LiRM
DecaturTxCowboy
> Please excuse me, after years of seeing your screeds, I've only just a
> message or two ago realized your first language is not English.
NOW you see what I've asking, if English is his first language!
RobR
and it includes certain features... then I go and buy the exact
same model phone from Verizon, but doesn't include those
features, then I call Nokia and ask where are they and Nokia
tells me Verizon asked us to remove those features on the
phones they sell... THAT'S A CRIPPLED PHONE!!!!
Verizon has intentioanlly crippled many of it's phones
to maximize their profits. Fine, that is a business
decision and I do have the right to take my business
elsewhere. It doesn't change the fact that Verizon
has Nokia cripple their phones.
Isaiah Beard
> In your world, should the entire consumer audience Google everything
> they're thinking of purchasing to see if its been crippled in any way.
Nope. I didn't use google. I just went straight to the Verizon
website, and looked at the first bluetooth capable phone on the list.
The description of what it supports is right there, and then it links
you to the PDF.
I *did* say I was tired of being *your* personal Google.
I expect consumers to have some common sense and make a decent effort to
know what they are plunking down money for, instead of expecting to be
treated like an infant, and having every piece of information spoon fed
to them.
Isaiah Beard
>
> "Hi, Mr. Quick, I've got 2005 BMW 325Ci. Its got only 1,0000 miles and
> is in pristine shape and it's only $5000."
>
>
> You pay the man, drive off the lot.
That's where you and the rest of society differ. I'd never do that, and
I don't know any reasonable person who'd do that. Before I'd buy
anyone's used car, I'd make sure of what kind of warranties are being
offered. If none, or if the warranty is unsatisfactory to me, then no
cash changes hands until MY mechanic looks the car over and gives it a
clean bill of health. The VIN also gets a carfax to ensure it's not
issued a salvage title, hasn't been totalled, hasn't been in a flood, etc.
Only if it passes those tests, and passes a state inspection, would I
even BEGIN to consider buying it.
See, I don't throw money around blindly, and then blame everyone else
when I end up with a lemon.
SMS
> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from Cingular. Then
> it's decision time. Send it back to Cingular or keep it and make the
> switch. Maybe Verizon will shake some marbles loose during this
> period and realize what a stupid move this is.
No they won't. To them the move isn't stupid, because they're too cocky
to care about you. To them, the law of supply and demand goes like this,
"we have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the hell we want."
The biggest problem with CDMA is the control that the carrier has over
handsets. IMVAIO, Verizon should be very careful about how they are
alienating users. Once AMPS can be turned off in 2008, a large part of
Verizon's advantage over Cingular will vanish (yes, rural AMPS is likely
to remain in place, but urban AMPS still is very useful, at least in my
area where it's AMPS or nothing in many areas that are just minutes from
the urban core).
> Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone gets
> to fix them. Do the right thing and give back what you stupidly took
> away.
Sprint could make a big push with a marketing campaign along the lines
of "we don't disable functions on your handset," (if this is true).
John Navas
In <YN8Nf.2372$SJ2.1428@trndny01> on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:46:00 GMT, "RobR"
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Are you insane John?
No. And you?
>If I buy a phone directly from Nokia
>and it includes certain features... then I go and buy the exact
>same model phone from Verizon, but doesn't include those
>features, then I call Nokia and ask where are they and Nokia
>tells me Verizon asked us to remove those features on the
>phones they sell... THAT'S A CRIPPLED PHONE!!!!
I disagree -- that's a Verizon-branded phone. Lots of phones are customized
by lots of carriers. The Nokia-branded phone has one set of features. The
Verizon-branded phone has another set of features. Nokia pricing is higher.
You can get the Nokia feature set, but it costs more. In other words, this is
about price, not features.
>Verizon has intentioanlly crippled many of it's phones
>to maximize their profits.
You know that for a fact? Really? How? And why then is it selling the phone
for less than Nokia?
>Fine, that is a business
>decision and I do have the right to take my business
>elsewhere. It doesn't change the fact that Verizon
>has Nokia cripple their phones.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
John Navas
In <usenet-3E1372....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
23:13:55 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>Why do you suppose they don't change the wording to: "all of this
>phone's Bluetooth capabilities, with the exception of
>hands-free/headesets, intentionally disabled by the manufacture for
>financial reasons only by demand of Verizon Wireless."? Why do you
>suppose that is?
Because it's not true.
>The first thing I see advertised in VZW's features column for the E815
>is Bluetooth. Given that the only Bluetooth capabilities the phone
>apparently has are for headsets and hands free kits (with all others
>being intentionally disabled), why do you suppose VZW prominently (as
>its first bragging point) touts Bluetooth???
Because those features are what most people care about.
>It (the disclaimer) goes on to say:
>
>"It does not support all object exchange (OBEX) profiles."
>
>Which to you and me means something (after getting to the fine print).
>To John Q. Customer who has a new Bluetooth-capable car and laptop, it
>doesn't mean smack.
John Q doesn't care about OBEX.
>Why do you suppose that disclaimer does not read:
>
>"All Bluetooth capabilities other than headsets and hand free kits
>intentionally disabled"
Because that wouldn't make sense.
>Seems to be that if features of the phone are crippled, the phone should
>be sold at a "crippled" price w/o the mandate of an extended contract.
That's why you're not running a cell carrier.
>Alas, we're back to fact the VZW has the best network, so they can get
>away with doing whatever they want.
Hardly.
>We're not going to change that.
Nothing needs to be changed. Don't like the deal. Don't buy it.
John Navas
In <usenet-744FE4....@news.easynews.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
23:27:23 GMT, Michael Wise <use...@okean.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1209lms...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>> Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all spelled out for you:
>>
>> http://dts.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_Handsets.pdf
>
>I see, so the expectation is for consumers to expect that phones they
>have their eye on might, in some fashion, be crippled. Therefor, they
>are expected to conduct Internet research to verify whether or not the
>phone they want has been crippled to satisfy an idea which they should
>have had no reasonable expectation to have in the first place?
The reasonable expectation is that you get what's listed, not something more.
John Navas
In <44052516$0$96002$742e...@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:37:44
-0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>The biggest problem with CDMA is the control that the carrier has over
>handsets. IMVAIO, Verizon should be very careful about how they are
>alienating users. Once AMPS can be turned off in 2008, a large part of
>Verizon's advantage over Cingular will vanish (yes, rural AMPS is likely
>to remain in place, but urban AMPS still is very useful, at least in my
>area where it's AMPS or nothing in many areas that are just minutes from
>the urban core).
Nonsense. Digital coverage here in the SF Bay Area is excellent.
Bud Stein
> I went to the Bluetooth FAQ only to find they have - get
> this - disabled ALL parts of the Bluetooth profile that
> has allowed me in the past to pair with Palm Zire to use
> of the Bluetooth profile that allows the phone to function
> Oh yeah! Money! They want people to pay for every . . to
> transfer mp3's . . . like I have done literally for the
> . . . it required a cable, but it worked . . . I wouldn't
> have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
LiRM,
I am not sure why this was crossposted into alt.cellular.cingular.
Why not continue to use the old phone and plan if it was not
a breech of the Terms of Service to use a telephone as a modem?
Bud Stein
CellGuy
> Not that I know about. I know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
> of that.
Mine always have.
GomJabbar
This issue is very simular to computer hardware assembler's common
practice. For instance ATI makes a certain model video card, say the
Radeon X1900XTX. Everyone reads a review of this card in the computer
mags. They say GREAT, that's what I want! The computer hardware
assembler puts a "white box" ATI X1900XTX card in the PC and advertises
that the PC has an ATI X1900XTX card. What he doesn't tell you is that
the card is crippled compared to the version reviewed in the mags. It
has less video memory, has been clocked down, or has some other feature
reduced or missing. A savvy computer shopper will know of this
practice and will make sure that they are getting the "true" ATI Radeon
X1900XTX as was reviewed in the mags.
Likewise, a person is in the market for a new cell phone. He reads a
review of a Nokia model xxxx phone with all these great features, or
sees one in a store. He goes to Nokia's website to get all the details
on this Nokia xxxx phone. After all, the carriers are often sparse
with the details on a phone's specific features. Now when he goes to
buy it, he buys a carriers branded Nokia xxxx phone, thinking he is
getting all the features he saw on Nokia's website. NOT! The savvy
cell phone user will know of this common practice and will know to ask
the right questions. However, John Q. Public ends up getting burned.
Some mention a trial period resolves this, however many use the first
days of cell phone use just getting all their phone numbers entered and
learning the basic features. By the time they get to the more advanced
features, the trial period may be up.
As an aside, I recently bought a used Cingular branded Motorola V540 on
e-bay. The phone did not come with a users manual, so I downloaded one
from Motorola. After reading the manual, I learned of features that
were not enabled on my phone. The manual did have this caveat:
"Certain mobile phone features are dependent on the capabilities and
settings of your service provider's network. Additionally, certain
features may not be activated by your service provider, and/or the
provider's network settings may limit the feature's functionality.
Always contact your service provider about feature availability and
functionality." So Motorola does at least have a caveat, but it would
certainly be more useful if they would list which major carriers
support which features. On Cingular's site - Online Phone Store page,
looking at the Motorola V557, under features it says: "Bluetooth?
connectivity for connecting wireless accessories". What does this
mean? Which accessories? Can you connect to a PDA or Laptop, or only
hands free and car kit? Many will think that all bluetooth features
listed on Motorola's site should work. Cingular (other carriers as
well) does not provide sufficient or detailed enough information to
know from the above which bluetooth features you can really use with
this phone. It takes real digging (and is time consuming) to read
through all the fine print and find out the details.
Call this what you will. I call it deception when the carrier does not
clearly state on their website that all the features available on the
phone you are looking at may not be enabled - click here for more info.
At least that would give the prospective buyer some warning. The
current practice is unethical - yet not unlawful. The carriers know
which features they have disabled on a particular phone, but they also
know if they tell the buyer this, they won't sell as many phones (and
cellular contracts). Buying a cell phone is like buying an auto from a
used car salesman (not to disparage all used car salemen). Caveat
Emptor.
SMS
> I had heard that on the specific phone I was looking at, pictures
> could not be downloaded via the USB cable and didn't fully support
> some aspects of the BT profile. The dealer confirmed these facts. For
> me it was a deal breaker. I didn't suit there and bitch and moan to
> the dealer, I simply thanked him for his time and went looking for
> another phone/provider.
One other thing that you can do is to look to see if there are firmware
patches available that restore the disabled features. During the 710
fiasco, this was the case. There often are after-market vendors selling
non-disabled versions of handsets as well.
I've avoided going to a Smartphone type phone because I don't want to
give up AMPS yet, but once that decision is made for me, I would leave
Verizon due to the crap that they are doing to their handsets.
LiRM
<sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>LiRM wrote:
>
>> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
>> the phone to function as a modem.
>>
>> Are they out of their minds?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Seriously.
>
>Nope.
>
>> They have lost it all together.
>>
>> Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
>> why on Earth would they do such a thing?
>>
>> Oh yeah! Money!
>
>Last I checked, they ARE allowed to make money. And also, Verizon isn't
>the only carrier that prohibits illicit tethering of their devices.
>Pretty all the carriers impose some kind of restriction on tethering for
>data without getting the appropriate price plan. Verizon just happens
>to actually enforce that rule a little more aggressively than most,
>though Sprint is also starting to get on the ball as well. To do it
>"legally," all of the "Big Three" carriers charge the same amount: $60 a
>month on top of your voice plan.
>
>By the way: I've seen the throughput of EVDO data tethering via
>Bluetooth. Quite frankly, you're not going to get the speed. Bluetooth
>DUN makes EVDO useless, while tethering over a cable is much faster and
>more efficient.
>
>> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
>> quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
>> instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
>> done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
>> for it now.
>
>So you're bitching because Verizon isn't letting you get away with using
>a service without paying for it. Fantastic.
Um, not actually, no. First of all, they can't offer the service
because of the disabled Bluetooth profile. Secondly, I'd pay for it
if they did. I will be with Cingular. Doesn't mean I *like* it, but
I see no other option at this point.
>
>And I never understood why people wanted to use their minutes for packet
>data. It's the rawest deal in the book, especially considering that
>under such a model, you're billed even if nothing is moving through the
>pipe, but you just happen to have the phone in the mode to receive and
>send data packets. In fact, taht's caused a LOT of problems with the
>new EVDO handsets, in that they love to stay dormant on data, racking up
>the airtime for those still on MOU.
>
>> And yes, I have done this for 7 years.
>
>So have I, on Sprint and Cingular. Sprint and Cingular are simply
>dumber about figuring out when you're doing something you're not
>supposed to do.
I have never done something I wasn't supposed to do. In fact,
Verizons support people gave me the info necessary to get it to work.
I have spoken to people at the corporate level at Verizon about this
and other Bluetooth issues - I suspect someone somewhere along the
food chain would have said "you can't do that" or "we will charge you
for doing that", don't you think?
>
>> I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
>> excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers.
>
>Then it looks like you need to make a choice between awesome coverage,
>and less coverage but with a carrier who is lax about letting you take
>advantage of lax network security. *shrug*
>
>
>> Since my
>> phones have been trimode's, I have gotten service in the boonies at
>> times when no one else could.
>
>By the way, that RAZR you're lusting after isn't tri-mode. Nor are any
>other EVDO-enabled handsets. So if the boonies you speak of only have
>AMPS, you're gonna be SOL with that RAZR. Just giving you fair warning.
Yeah, I kind of figured that. But thanks for the warning
nevertheless.
>
>
>> I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
>> 20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
>> do it for Christs'sake).
>
>Uhh, no you can't. Not without Cingular charging you for the usage, per
>kilobyte.
>
>The terms of use for Cingular's $20 unlimited Media Net state:
>
>"MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering. Cingular reserves
>the right to remove customers from MEdia Net packages for the use of a
>wireless device as an interface to other devices or networks, as
>determined by Cingular, including but not limited to device tethering."
>
>Read it for yourself: http://www.cingular.com/media/media_legal
>
>In order to tether, you will need to get the same $60 plan (or actually,
>it may still be $79 with Cingular) that you would have to get with
>Verizon. The two carriers just have different philosophies about
>enforcing this rule: Verizon locks down their phones to prevent it from
>happening without you letting them know first, while Cingular waits for
>you to violate the TOS and then simply sends you a four-figure bill at
>the end of the month, charging you for every kilobyte you used.
Thanks for this info. After reading it, I spent - literally - about 2
hours on the phone yesterday with a supervisor from customer service
and one of the guys in Data Connection Services. They both assured me
that the 19.99 Medianet plan will do it for me. If it doesn't, I have
someone to go back to to make sure it will - without further charges.
Anyway, we'll see how it all goes. :)
Isaiah Beard
> The biggest problem with CDMA is the control that the carrier has over
> handsets.
That's not a CDMA issue. In fact there are implementations of CDMA
where R-UIM's are used, that function just like a SIM card in GSM. If
Verizon, Sprint, et. al. chose to, they probably could transition to
this system. In fact, the opportunity to do so is ripe right now as
they transition over from the ESN format (which is running out of
numbers) to MEIDs.
The handset control issue is more a "some carriers are control freaks"
problem, not a CDMA problem.
Isaiah Beard
>> Checking what? Asking the carrier: "Excuse me, did you intentionally and
>> for financial reasons only, cripple any features on this fancy new
>> "subsidized" phone you wish to lock me into two years with?"?
>
> Yes! Of course! I did exactly that with Verizon when I was looking to
> purchase a Smartphone OS based phone. I also did research on the
> Internet, wouldn't you before plunking down $399 or so? If you're
> buying a phone for specific features you need, why WOULDN'T you check
> and make sure those features are available and enabled?!?
Unfortunately, Mr. Wise (who just plain isn't) has decided to play dumb.
Which is interesting, considering he appears to be intelligent and
tech savvy enough to connect a cable between his cell phone and computer
and apply the necessary settings and commands to obtain internet access,
yet he feels that typing a simple URL into his web browser and obtaining
information about a product before he buys it is just too much work, and
beyond his level of comprehension.
Isaiah Beard
> Thanks for this info. After reading it, I spent - literally - about 2
> hours on the phone yesterday with a supervisor from customer service
> and one of the guys in Data Connection Services. They both assured me
> that the 19.99 Medianet plan will do it for me. If it doesn't, I have
> someone to go back to to make sure it will - without further charges.
I'm would make sure you get that supervisor's name, and then make sure
you get what the supervisor told you in writing. I know back in the
day, people were tethering on Sprint with their $15 plan, because CS
reps and supervisors told them it was okay to do so. Then they got the
"warning letter" later on. My experience with Cingular CS was actually
worse than Sprint, so I wouldn't be surprised if they too, fed you
incorrect info.
> Anyway, we'll see how it all goes. :)
Best of luck. As long as your bill stays a normal size when it comes in
the mail, you should be fine. If one day it arrives and it's an inch
thick in a large envelope, be prepared to spend a day with CS fighting it.
LiRM
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <1u3902p65dsq30nhk...@4ax.com> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:08:49
>-0500, LiRM <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:06 GMT, "Quick"
>><quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>I'm still reading this over and over... Is this some sort of
>>>technology blasphemy? Are you a BT disciple or something?
>>
>>Not at all. But name for me, if you can, one viable wireless standard
>>that would allow me to connect my PDA (or a laptop) to my phone to
>>make a net connection.
>
>How is that relevant? Don't like the feature set? Don't buy the phone. My
>own phone doesn't have IrDA, one of the tradeoffs I weighed before buying it.
>Whether or not it could have had IrDA is irrelevant. Had I really
>wanted/needed IrDA, I would have gotten some other phone.
>
How is it relevant? <looking around> How is it relevant? Are you
talkin to me? Did I just step into the twilight zone or did you?
I'm seriously not trying to be a smart ass at *all*, but how can you
even ask that question?
I'm going to assume that somehow, something here has gone over my head
completely, as the entire *point* of this post is about connecting
wirelessly through a cell phone from a device such as a PDA - and the
issues I addressed in my OP, in particular regarding Bluetooth. The
question I put to Quick was to give me another technology besides
Bluetooth that would allow same. I was hoping Infrared wasn't going
to come up for obvious reasons, but anyway.....
You're fuckin with me, right John? I mean you're a bright guy and
all, so that's all I can figure at this point.
By the way, feel free to add your comments and/or suggestions to the
question. If there's a solution I just don't know about, I'm all
ears.
>>... If we *are* such a small
>>minority, why remove that aspect of a profile when one can simply
>>leave it alone.
>
>Many possible reasons, including the cost of support.
>
>>The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
>>
>>But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
>>v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
>>profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
>>fully.
>
>Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
>
>>They just lost a lawsuit over it.
>
>Nope. They settled a lawsuit over it. The class action was silly, and only
>settled (not adjudicated) because that cost Verizon less than fighting, which
>is what unscrupulous class action lawyers count on. Sadly, the costs of that
>silliness will inevitably be passed on to subscribers.
>
>>But that doesn't make you any less of a dickhead for jumping on my ass
>>for what amounts to a still stupid (and greedy) move on Verizon's
>>part.
>
>I doubt Verizon sees it that way.
GomJabbar
> The question I put to Quick was to give me another technology besides Bluetooth that
> would allow same. I was hoping Infrared wasn't going to come up for obvious reasons,
> but anyway.....
They're starting to come out. Here is one example.
LiRM
wrote:
>In article <m_2Nf.477987$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ...
>> >The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
>> >
>> >But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
>> >v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
>> >profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
>> >fully.
>>
>> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
>
>
>How can one really make an intelligent choice, when the vendor (in this
>case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
>in the phones they buy? It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
>phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
>discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
>reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
>equivalent feature sets?
>
>
>
>--Mike
And I'm seeing the same thing at Cingular already. I've had no less
then 3 people tell me Medianet at 19.99 will allow me to connect to
the net with my PDA in unlimited mode. Then I read Isaiah's post and
since it made sense, I went back to Cingular *again* - this time
getting a supervisor on the line with a Data Connection guy to make
sure the 19.99 plan would do it. They both say it will and assured me
up, down, backwards and sideways.
Is this the case?
At this point I'll be damned if I know.
But I do know that at least I have a head honcho I can go back to
(who, by the way, was actually the sweetest and most patient lady I've
had the pleasure to meet so far at Cingular. She didn't understand
too well what I wanted to do, but we spent well over an hour - maybe
an hour and a half talking with different people before getting a
confirm that this would do it. She really wanted to learn the ins and
outs of this - and I salute the woman. I don't want to mention her
name as I don't think it's prudent, even though she deserves the
praise).
This is an arduous maze to make ones way through. Unless you want to
know how to download a pic of Britney Spears to use for your
wallpaper, holy shit is it hard to get to the right people.
Um. I do have one other question if someone could help.
How *do* you download a pic of Britney Spears to use as wallpaper?
Michael Wise
Isaiah Beard <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
Wow, you made a funny with my name.
I'm not speaking on my personal behalf. Having followed things cellular
for the last 11-12 years, I'm well aware of what is disabled in the
crippled BT-capable phones VZW hawks. I would venture the same hold true
with most readers of the alt.cellular.* hierarchy.
I'm speaking to what the general consumer population should have a
reasonable expectation to know. Why would John Q. Public be expected to
ask whether features of his phone have been deliberately disabled (for
financial reasons)?
--Mike
Cliff
"Bud Stein" <bud....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44057022...@gmail.com...
Michael Wise
subdude <subdude2RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The points I made are valid, Quick, even if they are a bit emphatic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But there were quite a bunch of us at Verizon who got fucked on the
> >> >> >v710 as Verizon at that time had disabled other parts of the Bluetooth
> >> >> >profile that prevented different parts of that profile from working
> >> >> >fully.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody at Verizon "got fucked" -- they were free to choose.
> >> >
> >> >How can one really make an intelligent choice,
> >>
> >> By checking *before* buying.
> >
> >Checking what? Asking the carrier: "Excuse me, did you intentionally and
> >for financial reasons only, cripple any features on this fancy new
> >"subsidized" phone you wish to lock me into two years with?"?
>
> Yes! Of course! I did exactly that with Verizon when I was looking to
> purchase a Smartphone OS based phone. I also did research on the
> Internet, wouldn't you before plunking down $399 or so?
Of course I would. Most of the tech savvy audience reading n.g.'s like
this would. John Q. Public most likely would not. Most consumers assume
that when a product advertises a capability; that they're getting what
they're paying for. The average consumer has no reason to suspect that
their wireless vendor is intentionally crippling some functionality in
order to coerce consumers into using the carrier's paid equivalent. Why
would the consumer suspect that, particularly when the carrier goes
through great lengths to a void letting them know?
> If you're
> buying a phone for specific features you need, why WOULDN'T you check
> and make sure those features are available and enabled?!?
Why would the consumer have any reason to suspect that features on their
phone have been disabled? Maybe if VZW prominently displayed "Some [or
Most] BT features disabled, we could reasonably expect the consumer to
ask first...but now, there's not much which would cause them to ask.
> I had heard that on the specific phone I was looking at, pictures
> could not be downloaded via the USB cable and didn't fully support
> some aspects of the BT profile. The dealer confirmed these facts. For
> me it was a deal breaker. I didn't suit there and bitch and moan to
> the dealer, I simply thanked him for his time and went looking for
> another phone/provider.
>
> Why is this so damn hard for people to understand?!?!
It boils down to that you heard about it. You heard about it for the
same reason I heard about it, and for the same reason most people around
here heard about it: we make it our business (either out of professional
necessity or hobbyist interest) to keep in the loop on things cellular.
What percentage of cell users do you suppose read anything in the
alt.cellular.* hierarchy...or even know what Usenet is or go to places
like phonescoop.com? Do you think its reasonable to expect that all
consumers do?
> >When you go to buy a new computer, do you ask the dealer whether they
> >have had any features of that computer crippled for nothing other than
> >financial gain? Did think so. If they did, would you expect them to tell
> >you that up front? Yes? Case closed.
>
> Piss poor analogy, because your comparing apples and oranges.
Its a spot-on analogy.
> Try
> this one; RCN and COMCAST both use a certain Motorola Hi Def DVR
> converter box which has a USB port installed on it. ASSUMING both RCN
> and Comcast were available in your area (and this is usually not the
> case, but as close as I could come for a comparable analogy) and one
> provider enabled the port to download content from the units hard
> drive and the other didn't.
>
> If this feature was important to you, wouldn't you verify that it was
> enabled as a part of the basis of your decision? And if you didn't
> think to ask and found it out later, whose fault would that be?
I would expect that the provider would prominently disclose any product
limitations prior to purchase.
>
> As for how it is communicated to the customer, I can only speak for my
> experiences - both Verizon and Cingular communicated this to me both
> as a mention in passing and in a part of the collateral handed to me.
> Verizon even makes mention of a "14 day worry free Guarantee" as part
> of their marketing.
>
>
> >
> >> >when the vendor (in this
> >> >case, VZW) has not been forthcoming of the features they have disabled
> >> >in the phones they buy?
> >>
> >> The vendor was forthcoming.
> >
> >
> >Really? Tell me, Mr. Navas...how was/is VZW forthcoming about features
> >they have had crippled on the phone they buy (sources please)?
> >
>
> See above. I asked the Verizon rep about the USB and BT limitations,
> he answered me truthfully.
Because people like you, me, and probably everybody else in this thread
knows to ask that question, as angst on BT/USB crippling in VZW's cell
phones has been discussed countless times...as least on
alt.cellular.verizon.
Had a consumer not asked the question, because there was no reasonable
expectation on his/her part that they would be getting something
intentionally crippled on their carrier's request...does that make them
at fault? Why shouldn't the rep be required to disclose the limitations
w/o having to be asked if there are limitations?
> ...
> YMMV, but it doesn't mean they'll all lie. Of course if your too
> stupid or lazy to use due diligence to ensure that a feature or
> service that's important to you is enabled, they're not going to go
> out their way to tell you.
So a consumer who buys something advertising a feature set and there is
no prominent disclosure that most useful aspects of that feature set
have been intentionally disabled for financial reasons, that consumer is
"stupid and lazy" because he didn't make sure he was getting all
features when he had no reason to suspect he would not?
> Why would they? When's the last time you
> went to a car dealer and the salesman said, "Oh by the way, you look
> like the kind of guy who might enjoy satellite radio - you should now
> that the standard radio you're purchasing won't work with XM, only
> Sirius. And we placed lower in the side impact crash tests last
> year... OK, now you just sign here..."
A more appropriate analogy would be going to a car dealer and getting a
car with a satellite radio...only to find when registering for Sirius
and XM that the car dealer has had the stereo modified such that it will
not work unless the person leases a dongle from the dealership at a
monthly rate (on top of what the person is paying to XM/Sirius). The
dealer says: "I told you it had an XM radio. I know we didn't tell you
we crippled it so that we can get a cut of the action. I also know we
didn't tell you that up front. However, it's your own damn fault for
being to stupid and lazy to ask if we had crippled it."
> >> >It isn't till AFTER people have purchased the
> >> >phones and AFTER they are locked into 2-year contracts that they
> >> >discover that features of their phones have been crippled for no other
> >> >reason than to compel the subscriber to pony up for a VZW paid
> >> >equivalent feature sets?
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> >
> >"Agree to disagree", "Nonsense" all tired retreats from Navas' worn-out
> >playbook. Either answer the questions your responses generate...or don't
> >bother participating.
> >
> The only thing "worn out" here is the attitude that if Navas replies
> to something, there's immediately one or two people who jump on the
> reply and refute everything the guy says. Today someone asked a
> question about a point on a Cingular contract, and Navas replied back
> with a simple, non confrontational answer. Immediately people start
> accusing him of talking down to the OP and treating them like an
> idiot.
Probably because he has a well-earned reputation for being a Usenet
curmudgeon for many years now. You should see some of his rants in his
[and my] ISP's internal news groups.
> I don't get it. The guy seems to be one of the few people here with
> actual answers, and who's willing to help and a few of the denizens
> here seem determined to do their best reject ANYTHING he says out of
> hand.
>
> Worn out? I'd be worn out dealing with this crap constantly myself,
> it's beyond me why he even tries to help.
Because he is sometimes incorrect with his advice (frequently so when it
comes to mail server admin) and instead of admitting it and moving on,
he circles his wagons and starts insulting anybody who questions him
until finally retreating with his standard "We'll just have to agree to
disagree."
--Mike
Elector
"LiRM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:qslb029tcaombglap...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> How *do* you download a pic of Britney Spears to use as wallpaper?
Go to https://www.vzwpix.com/login.do and if you have not already signed up
for the free service then do so. Its your cellular number and a password you
select under register. Then do a Google for the photo of Britney Spears and
get a load of photo sites etc. save the photo to your hard drive. Then log
into https://www.vzwpix.com/login.do and upload your photos to the site.
Then send the photos to your cell phone (There is an option to do so from
the site) then simply go into your wallpaper menu on your cell phone and
select the Britney that turns you on and it will be the wall paper.
There are other ways such as with a data cable and the proper software like
Bitpim and others which interface with the cell phone and you could do it
that way.\
I hope that helped?
Elector
clifto
> so, why not just buy your own RAZR that's not disabled? Oh, you want
> someone to give it to you free without any gimmicks. But you can't
> find anybody to give you what you want. Hey, I want a million dollars
> but nobody will give that to me either, boo-hoo so sad...
Is there any surety that Verizon will activate it in that condition?
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
Quick
>
> It boils down to that you heard about it. You heard about
> it for the same reason I heard about it, and for the same
> reason most people around here heard about it: we make it
> our business (either out of professional necessity or
> hobbyist interest) to keep in the loop on things
> cellular.
>
> What percentage of cell users do you suppose read
> anything in the alt.cellular.* hierarchy...or even know
> what Usenet is or go to places like phonescoop.com? Do
> you think its reasonable to expect that all consumers do?
No. And I'm sure they could care less.
The average consumer buys something because they
want or need something. They usually look to see if the
product fulfills their needs *before* purchasing. It is not
often that that average consumer buys something and
*then* looks to see what they got. It is true that a number
of people buy something that does what they want and
then find later that it doesn't do something they had no
idea about before and feel cheated somehow.
For example you want to use a wireless headset with your
phone. You go to the store and the razor package says
you can use a bluetooth headset with that phone. You
get it and use a bluetooth headset with it. You're happy.
The phone does what they said it would do.
Some time later you see your friend download wall paper
from his PC with his razor. Your's doesn't do that. You
somehow feel cheated. You go on usenet and rant how
you've been swindled. How they should have been obligated
to tell you that you wouldn't be able to download wall paper.
In your case you had a need and checked to see if it was
supported before hand. It wasn't. You went on the internet
and ranted that you have been somehow cheated, swindled,
robbed, jerked around and otherwise raped by this corporation
because they don't list everything that is NOT included in their
product.
You're claiming "reasonable expectation". Doesn't apply.
I asked my daughter what a bluetooth profile was and then
what OBEX was. She didn't have a clue. I told her that was
OK because there were people out there fighting for her
right to be informed that she didn't get that with her phone...
-Quick
Michael Wise
"Quick" <quick71...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > It boils down to that you heard about it. You heard about
> > it for the same reason I heard about it, and for the same
> > reason most people around here heard about it: we make it
> > our business (either out of professional necessity or
> > hobbyist interest) to keep in the loop on things
> > cellular.
> >
> > What percentage of cell users do you suppose read
> > anything in the alt.cellular.* hierarchy...or even know
> > what Usenet is or go to places like phonescoop.com? Do
> > you think its reasonable to expect that all consumers do?
>
> No. And I'm sure they could care less.
> The average consumer buys something because they
> want or need something. They usually look to see if the
> product fulfills their needs *before* purchasing.
So if *before* purchasing they see the product advertised as having BT,
its wrong for them assume that it has full BT functionality? Or to
phrase it another way, is there anything to suggest to them that it does
not?
> It is not
> often that that average consumer buys something and
> *then* looks to see what they got.
Agreed, but nobody is suggesting otherwise. I'm saying that if they look
at the phone's blurb on VZW's site or in a VZW store, they see
literature prominently outing that it has Bluetooth. They've just looked
at what they're buying at that point. Absent any disclaimer warning that
all BT functionality save for head sets/hands free kits is disabled, why
should they think that would be the case.
> It is true that a number
> of people buy something that does what they want and
> then find later that it doesn't do something they had no
> idea about before and feel cheated somehow.
True, but that has nothing to do with this thread.
>
> For example you want to use a wireless headset with your
> phone. You go to the store and the razor package says
> you can use a bluetooth headset with that phone. You
> get it and use a bluetooth headset with it. You're happy.
> The phone does what they said it would do.
>
> Some time later you see your friend download wall paper
> from his PC with his razor. Your's doesn't do that. You
> somehow feel cheated. You go on usenet and rant how
> you've been swindled. How they should have been obligated
> to tell you that you wouldn't be able to download wall paper.
Again, your straw man argument does not apply here, as that's not what
I'm saying.
>
> In your case you had a need and checked to see if it was
> supported before hand. It wasn't. You went on the internet
> and ranted that you have been somehow cheated, swindled,
> robbed, jerked around and otherwise raped by this corporation
> because they don't list everything that is NOT included in their
> product.
I did? You must have me confused with somebody else. I didn't have a
need...and never said I did. Furthermore, I never said I even intended
to buy a VZW BT-capable phone.
I use a Kyocera 7135. It is not BT-capable. It would be kind of nice if
it was, but I would rather have a trimode Palm-based smart phone which
is a pretty good phone and a satisfactory PDA than have a non-AMPS
capable Treo 650 which is a pretty good PDA and a lousy phone...even if
it has BT. It wouldn't matter to me if VZW's Treo 650 had full BT
capabilities...the fact that it is digital only makes it not worthy of
consideration.
There's enough here to be discussed and debated without you having to
fabricate things.
> You're claiming "reasonable expectation". Doesn't apply.
> I asked my daughter what a bluetooth profile was and then
> what OBEX was. She didn't have a clue. I told her that was
> OK because there were people out there fighting for her
> right to be informed that she didn't get that with her phone...
I see, so what your daughter does and doesn't know is the yardstick by
which the adult consumer (the people who pay for the stuff) populace
know or should or should not know?
--Mike
Pete M
charge you around $70/month for the service.
"LiRM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:8bt8021i62m6jv2ll...@4ax.com...
>
> I've been on Verizon a long time. I went to check to update my phone
> the other day and found I was eligible to get a new RAZR for free.
>
> That was the good news.
>
> Having been fooled before (getting a v710 only to find OBEX not
> enabled), I went to the Bluetooth FAQ only to find they have - get
> this - disabled ALL parts of the Bluetooth profile that has allowed me
> in the past to pair with Palm Zire to use the phone as a modem.
>
> I couldn't believe what I was reading.
>
> I called in to verify this with a few different support reps and they
> confirmed it.
>
> Verizon has disabled the parts of the Bluetooth profile that allows
> the phone to function as a modem.
>
> Are they out of their minds?
>
> Seriously.
>
> They have lost it all together.
>
> Granted, I may be part of minority that wants to do such a thing, but
> why on Earth would they do such a thing?
>
> Oh yeah! Money!
>
> They want people to pay for every goddamn thing that they can get a
> quarter out of. Like being able to transfer mp3's. Or pictures. Or
> instead of just using my minutes to connect to the net - like I have
> done literally for the better part of almost 7 years - pay out my ass
> for it now.
>
> And yes, I have done this for 7 years. My first device that this
> worked with a Visor Deluxe. Granted, it required a cable, but it
> worked.
>
> I hate to have to switch carriers - because in all honesty they have
> excellent coverage - probably the best of all carriers. Since my
> phones have been trimode's, I have gotten service in the boonies at
> times when no one else could. No drop offs. At this - they are
> excellent at. Give credit where credit is due.
>
> Alas, I have an order in for a RAZR from Cingular whilst we speak -
> which has the entire Bluetooth profile enabled.
>
> Verizon - if you are here and listening - you are on the verge of
> losing a customer that's been one for YEARS. Since you took over
> whoever you took over to begin with when you first started. Been with
> you guys since day 1.
>
> I wouldn't have minded paying for the service (I will with Cingular -
> 20 bucks a month for unlimited net usage - sucks, but at least I can
> do it for Christs'sake).
>
> But to go ahead and completely disable this aspect of a Bluetooth
> profile when it's one of the primary reasons Bluetooth was developed?
>
> I can almost imagine the meeting where this took place - with some of
> the people in that meeting realizing just how ludicrous this is. I
> can guarantee you that they must have been looking at the mensa
> candidate who came up with this idea as if they had literally lost
> their mind.
>
> I actually had to read the FAQ a couple of times to believe this
> myself. In spite of all the insanity that followed the v710's lawsuit
> about this very issue. you guys go ahead and kill this part of the
> profile anyway?
>
> Man, you fucker's are out of your minds. I mean do whatcha gotta do
> to make a buck and all, but there must be guys at Cingular, Sprint,
> you name it - laughing this asses off over this - and probably will be
> for months.
>
> For people like me who probably use their phones more as a device to
> connect to the net then they do talk, you are literally forcing people
> to walk away.
>
> This will go down in cellular history as one of the biggest fuck ups
> ever implemented.
>
> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other phone to get
> this to work, but fuck that. If you're a Verizon customer and
> *that's* what you're doing to get parts of your phone working at some
> point you have to ask yourself - why the fuck am I putting myself
> through all this shit - for what - just to keep a company in business
> that forces you to go through that to make your phone work the way it
> was designed to in the first place? (In other words what Moto giveth
> you, Verizon taketh away. lol. Fuck them).
>
> Sorry. I just don't get it.
>
> I've got 30 days to screw around with this phone from Cingular. Then
> it's decision time. Send it back to Cingular or keep it and make the
> switch. Maybe Verizon will shake some marbles loose during this
> period and realize what a stupid move this is.
>
> Pssst. Hey. Verizon. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone gets
> to fix them. Do the right thing and give back what you stupidly took
> away.
>
> Regards,
>
> LiRM
Notan
>
> The same story is with the Sprint. Because they can sell you Data card and
> charge you around $70/month for the service.
>
It what's commonly referred to as "big business."
They're all doin' it.
Notan