always to companys fault - Page 10

Tmall · 12-16-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Well what if they decide to raise their rates to $21,000 a month? Who's job is it to determine what their plan is worth?

They tried that. It didn't work. That's why this thread is here..

Kaneman · 12-16-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Why not march over to T-mobile or AT&T?

Seriously dude, seriously? (pssst, contracts and other bullshit)

The torch and pitchfork approach should be applied to any out of control business, corporation, governmental entity or group of people and so forth.

Smittie61984 · 12-16-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

They tried that. It didn't work. That's why this thread is here..

They didn't raise their rates on the father. They charged him for the services that he purchased.

Tmall · 12-16-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

They didn't raise their rates on the father. They charged him for the services that he purchased.

No. If they`d have charged him for what he purchased, the bill would be 60. But, they saw the error of their ways and "ate" the additional 20,940 dollars that it didn't cost them to begin with.

The company saw the mistake/issue and fixed it. If they can get over it, I'm sure you can.

Homeslice · 12-16-2009, 07:19 PM

Devils advocate here:

The issue isn't always "does it actually cost anything to deliver X gigabytes"

The issue might be more like, "If a precedent is set, people will start taking advantage of us, claiming they "accidentally" downloaded a lot of data"

If you owned a movie theatre, would you let someone in for free, just because it "doesn't cost you anything" to fill one more seat?

Smittie61984 · 12-16-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

No. If they`d have charged him for what he purchased, the bill would be 60. But, they saw the error of their ways and "ate" the additional 20,940 dollars that it didn't cost them to begin with.

The company saw the mistake/issue and fixed it. If they can get over it, I'm sure you can.

No, you're wrong. If the kid didn't download 1.something GBs his bill would have been $60. If he got the unlimited plan for $70 a month (making a number up) and his son downloaded 1.something GBs then his bill would be $70.

They didn't fix a mistake either. They fixed an issue that was exploding on them.

If anything you can say it was the private market at work. People like you guys were getting outraged at the bill. The company saw that they could lose potential customers if they stuck to the bill so they waved the fee seeing they could make up the $21,000 that they are owed by not loosing 350 $60 a month customers (or gaining 100 $60 a month customers for their generosity and make some more money).

Curious, was there any government involvement? No, was the problem resolved in favor of the father? Yes. If it went to the courts the government would honor the contract and regardless of BS fine print or not he would be forced to pay the $21k.

Again the private sector prevails.

Papa_Complex · 12-16-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Devils advocate here:

The issue isn't always "does it actually cost anything to deliver X gigabytes"

The issue might be more like, "If a precedent is set, people will start taking advantage of us, claiming they "accidentally" downloaded a lot of data"

If you owned a movie theatre, would you let someone in for free, just because it "doesn't cost you anything" to fill one more seat?

In those cases it would be most prudent to "accidentally" promote their plan to one that includes data, giving them the option to pay the one-time (multi-thousands of dollars) bill instead as a one time fee, if they prefer.

Smittie61984 · 12-16-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Seriously dude, seriously? (pssst, contracts and other bullshit)
.

I'll take the $200 hit over $21000 any day.

Particle Man · 12-16-2009, 08:41 PM

"They F**K you with the cell phone!"

fasternyou929 · 12-16-2009, 10:12 PM

For your sake, I hope you're just intentionally being dumb because you need the attention. Either way, I'm embarrassed for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Really? $60 a month is reasonable? What about $65 or $100 a month? Or what about $20 a month? Who determines what is reasonable? You?

Customers decide what's reasonable. Are you going to sign up for a utility that costs $21,000/mohth? I doubt many will.

These numbers, including the $60, were not pulled out of thin air. If 10 pages of posts haven't cleared it up for you, I doubt my single post will, but I'll give it a shot:

Verizon charges $60 per month for unlimited data.
Mr. Estarija's bill was $21,917 for one month's use of data.

Here's to hoping your IQ skyrockets into the double-digits and you can suddenly comprehend the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

How much it costs the company to send the data is not necesarrily the point (it still costs to upkeep the infrastructure). The guy signed a contract and decided he didn't want the data plan. Sorry that the guy is a dumbass but he signed it and agreed that if he downloaded apps, music, games, etc that he'd pay for the data transfer.

You've signed contracts you didn't read fully and understand, too. Hell, I'm beginning to doubt you can understand the instructions on a bottle of shampoo, much less a SW license or car rental agreement. There's no reason a man should assume a data bill could reach over 20 grand if he doesn't take the $60 unlimited plan, it defies logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I don't believe the father's story of "I called verizon to have them turn it off"

I'll send Mr. Estarija some Ambien, he's gonna need it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Until then, I want the government to hold him up to the contract he signed unless Verizon decides out of the goodness of their hearts or a coin flip to waive the fees.

By the way I suggest children's tylenol for you.

You want the government to step in and enforce a bill that Verizon has already waived? Or are you still on page 2 and haven't got to the part where Verizon reversed the charges?

Go ahead and read through the rest of the posts, I'll check back in with you Tuesday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

By the way I suggest children's tylenol for you.

If I have to read one more post from you, nothing short of Vicodin will begin to help.

12-16-2009, 07:19 PM	#95
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Devils advocate here: The issue isn't always "does it actually cost anything to deliver X gigabytes" The issue might be more like, "If a precedent is set, people will start taking advantage of us, claiming they "accidentally" downloaded a lot of data" If you owned a movie theatre, would you let someone in for free, just because it "doesn't cost you anything" to fill one more seat?