No edit button on the News Forum, thank goodness, lol.
It's fun watching people try to backpedal on News Forums because of the lack of edit button. (not referring to you btw).
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Man Stung by $8,000 iPhone Bill
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
No edit button on the News Forum, thank goodness, lol.
It's fun watching people try to backpedal on News Forums because of the lack of edit button. (not referring to you btw).
???
You ARE assuming that he is telling the truth. Why should anybody believe a dope that doesn't get an international plan when he goes international then cries when hit with a huge bill?
See how that works?
Because I can't remember the last time that someone from a phone company knew what the hell they were talking about.... Unless it is a business rep that is commission based
And I have never known somebody stupid enough to go international without an international data/calling plan. Apparently they are out there, and they and many people seem to think being stupid should get you out of a massive bill.
Keep going. I love it when ignorant or obtuse people go on "personal responsibility" rants. So please, tell us more about how being an international traveler makes one an expert on cell phone plans or roaming fees that are literally millions of times more expensive than the internet at your house. When is the last time you've ever thought 1 MB of data would cost you over 60 dollars? Now, when is the last time some random guy, who isn't some computer nerd and knows about the stupid shit you do, has ever thought of that astronomical charge per MB?
Blaming the customer is about the most ignorant thing you can do, something you seem comfortable doing often it seems. The carriers do not attempt at all to convey this information because it is off putting to customers. My roommate has been a rep. at multiple carriers and at multiple stores for each, so the way the carriers do their business is no mystery to me. The only warnings you get are "this uses data, which may be charged depending on your plan" when you use a data using application. They never go to any lengths to tell you that when you are done that you're going to have to fork over the equivalent of a down payment on a house for those couple days of listening to music.
Stop being a pussy and blaming the ignorant customers and start blaming the corporations who should be compelled by law to explain the crippling robbery rates that could be charged to them.
Nice, personal attacks. You want to meet at the flagpole too tough guy? ROFL.
Ignorance is no excuse. When you flip the data roaming switch it tells you you may incur extra charges. If some dope does not then understand he is out of his network and on somebody elses network where they can charge ATT whatever they feel like charging ATT, too bad for that dope. I know personal responsibility is faux pas these days, but come on.
I see the ONLY option here is to get the GOVERNMENT involved and make those corporations pay to right the wrongs of stupid people. THAT will show those greedy corporations that are in business to make a profit. Put them out of business for ignorant fools being too stupid to read a contract.
YEAH!
You sound like the type of person who blames every one but his self for mistakes.
Lol cute. Raging about government in your ignorance infused post.
The government should force carriers to explain in terms that regular people will have no problem understanding the risk of overages during activation and during the time of roaming transition when the result is a bill that could be a down payment on a house. Personal responsibility has fuck all to do with this scenario. If the carriers are being upfront about the risks, then the customer will be completely oblivious to the "this app uses lots of data, hope you have an internet plan hurr durr" application warnings and what they are actually implying.
You are the type of person who fails completely at judging other people.
You should stop calling people ignorant, it makes you sound ignorant.
They are upfront about the risks. It is called a contract, and you sign it when you accept the terms of service. Get it? My contract had all kinds of fine details in it, including international roaming info. I went over the whole thing by bullet point, until I knew what I was getting into, asked a few questions, THEN signed.
Your solution is to get the gov involved and absolve ALL Personal responsibility. One should be able to sign a contract and not read it, then back out and call foul when something happens you do not like that is your fault and call it "predatory"?
ROFL. The Obama admin has a cabinet position for you. Minister of Blame.
So you're saying the user has no responsibility whatsoever to read over his data plan details? The government should hold the hand of its citizens to protect them from a free market?
You do know that the government sticking its hand in every thing defeats the purpose of a free market...right?
Most every cell carriers(in the United States) explicitly states the consequences of roaming. I know this because I deal with cell phone providers every day as a function of my job. Virgin Mobile Canada isn't very clear, the most I could find on their site is that roaming in the US is $3/MB.
That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. He apparently wants the sales reps to read you the contract word for word, even though he is too impatient to read it himself...
Makes TONS of sense.
Oh and good luck getting a foreign based provider to honor your domestic carriers rates when you roam without a international plan. You think England is going to invade Russia over insane cell phone roaming rates charged to Brits without international plans on Russian owned networks? ROFL.
$3 is not $60. The whole issue has to do with one of "transparency". There is none. You might be subject to considerably higher charges. Well, what does that mean? How can you quantify that? Where are the rates posted? I know what a MB means, joe blow probably does not. I can possibly calculate how many MB a page is, but open up a photo web page and you might be talking 50 MB of embedded pictures. How is a typical user supposed to know this? Having some little text in a document nobody reads should not give cell phone companies the right to charge customers thousands of dollars because they can. Do they even state the charge rate in these disclaimers?
Gee, I want to go to a trip to France. Better check my wireless carrier's webpage. http://www.virginmobile.ca/vmc/en/plans/longdistance.html Alright, I'll be traveling internationally outside the U.S.:
When you're making any calls while you're outside of Canada and the US the rates all depend on which country you're calling from. Check out our international calling rates to see the charges.
Sending texts is 60¢/each and data is 5¢/KB on all phones
Receiving texts is free.
Check out our Travellers bundles and save when traveling abroad.
DAMN YOUR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY VIRGIN MOBILE!
When you're making any calls while you're outside of Canada and the US the rates all depend on which country you're calling from. Check out our international calling rates to see the charges.
Sending texts is 60¢/each and data is 5¢/KB on all phones
Receiving texts is free.
Check out our Travellers bundles and save when traveling abroad.
DAMN YOUR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY VIRGIN MOBILE!
This is NOT enough. Apparently, they need to come to your house and hold your hand or your contract is null and void.
The point was they should make a lite version of the contract where you wouldn't need a lawyer to decode it.
The way I look at this is -
If there occurs to be an international charges that would've exceed what an international plan cost - it should automatically add in the cost of the international plan and then go from there accordingly to the international plan rates.
I bet it'll be significant less than 8k. Why they, telecoms, don't do this I don't know.
If there occurs to be an international charges that would've exceed what an international plan cost - it should automatically add in the cost of the international plan and then go from there accordingly to the international plan rates.
I bet it'll be significant less than 8k. Why they, telecoms, don't do this I don't know.
Ask what? The only thing they're waving at under your nose are the 'awesome' features and packages, without going into the drawbacks. You wouldn't think to ask those drawbacks if you didn't even know they were there. And unless you ask for a specific one with question targeted directly at it (which is unlikely since you didn't know what to look for at the time) they tend to dodge the question (typical salesman tactic).
Oh yeah,
http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/international/roaming/iphone-travel-tips.jsp
Why doesn't AT&T does this, automatically slap on the plan whatever the caller has tripped as a protection feature and go from there, at the most, it would've only cost him...
Only another 199.99 for 200 MB.
I really still think that's a lot but hell I'll take $200 over $8000.
so, standard bill + unlimited data plan = $100, / 30 = $3.33 / day, * 3 days = $9 cost per day
now 8000/9 = 88888 % what his cost per day is.
if any of you think this is ok, the follow the logic.
how about if the bill was 80000? would that be ok?
what about 800,000? does some little text in a contract make it ok?
what about 8 MILLION dollars? Is that still fair based on what he agreed?
I mean if 8K is ok, based on a rate that is almost 9000% more than what the customer pays,
then 8 Milllion should be ok, based on a rate that is almost 9 Million % more than what he pays
now 8000/9 = 88888 % what his cost per day is.
if any of you think this is ok, the follow the logic.
how about if the bill was 80000? would that be ok?
what about 800,000? does some little text in a contract make it ok?
what about 8 MILLION dollars? Is that still fair based on what he agreed?
I mean if 8K is ok, based on a rate that is almost 9000% more than what the customer pays,
then 8 Milllion should be ok, based on a rate that is almost 9 Million % more than what he pays
distortion69
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 337
How about responsibility? Google that? What do you think we should do, steal tax payer money to force this company to lower the rates because this guy didn't check his contract? The problem is the guy lives in a society, where he expects the government is going to take care of everything like health care, and health scores at his local restaurant, roads, automobile safety.. and rather than researching things, he just assumes it's probably alright.
This is why we will continue to get dumber and dumber by the year. How about, instead of stealing my tax money that I worked hard for to stop deceptive practices like this from stealing my money (ironic)....let the guy post online or go to the news (like he has), and if the business wants to maintain a good reputation and keep it's business, they'll do something about it. That's a much cheaper way of handling it than the stupidity of thinking we can have enough regulations to stop the irresponsible people in the world from needing to be responsible. How much would the regulations have cost to stop this from happening? Would that increase the price of other peoples costs? Will there always be a regulation to foresee every single problem that a business faces?
Sometimes regulations every single time something happens isn't the answer. If the guy thinks the business practices were deceptive, he can try to start a class action lawsuit with other consumers who were wronged, he can try an independent suit.. he could try to reason with the company, and threaten to post about what has happened to him and how was wronged. I suspect that the company will have to respond if they stand to lose more than $8,000.
Just remember, lobbyists lobby for regulations too frequently. Sometimes those regulations help their companies, and hurt other small companies who can't afford cost of compliance. It is common practice in the business world to try to regulate yourself out of competition, and this has been happening for the better part of 100 years of anti-trust.
Regulations can't stop people from being stupid. Ask before you go on a trip. If you have been wronged, the best consumer protection is consumers looking out for consumers. Inform others, maybe go class action... It is highly likely the said company will settle over a measly $8000 than receive bad publicity. But if you think Washington is looking out for you, just go back and watch the Freddie and Fannie video's not even a few years ago with the very same regulators making our financial regulation bills now. Tell me if you trust that new regulations will be looking out for your best interest after you see whose interests the regulations are likely going to serve.
Wow, someone who actually gets it. It's a shame that surprises me so much these days.
You apparently don't udnerstand what "up front" means. Burying it in fine print and saying "sign here" is not being up front. Its great that you were patient enough to make your rep go over it in detail with you (note, you made him do it after you read it all, they weren't up front about it), but not everyone is or knows they should.
"get the gov involved"? Way to be a drama queen. I said force them to be up front and go over the important things by saying things like "If you data roam with this out of the country, you'll end up paying thousands and thousands of dollars per day of usage". Don't be such a child about simple concepts.
If it is such an issue that someone would cry foul, then the carrier should be obligated to make the customer aware of the risk, not just play dumb and bury it in the fine print.
Cute. You think America has a free market. You also think a truly free market is a good thing. Lol. They don't actually exist in this world and there is a reason for it.
Perhaps in the fine print. They do not explain it at the point of sale.
You interactions with business accounts has no relation to some random guy signing up for cell service. You are grossly detached from reality if you don't understand that business accounts get much more attention and care from carriers. Business accounts net larger bonuses for employees and more stable revenue for the carriers.
Thank you for actually understanding and not just being an obtuse hard head arguing out of misguided morals and principles.
If everyone needs detailed explanations of certain parts of contracts, then those contracts are being unacceptably worded and need compulsory explanation of certain parts. Namely the ones where a days normal use will cost you thousands upon thousands of dollars.
The answer is yes because he didn't read the contract, if I'm understanding "schizrade" correctly.
I don't use my cell phone out of the country because it would result in exorbantly high prices, just as I don't ask a grocery store to deliver me one packet of ramen noodles.The delivery charge would be atrocious.
Responsibility. All those times you're upset that companies try to weasel out of contracts is because companies have to deal with bogus PR messes like this dude who will abuse the system to get out of his debt.
Responsibility. All those times you're upset that companies try to weasel out of contracts is because companies have to deal with bogus PR messes like this dude who will abuse the system to get out of his debt.
Hahaha. Lowering rates = stealing tax payer money. This diatribe is going to be a goldmine lol.
Health care is an inelastic demand that has no place being gouged by corporations. The simple cold reality is that corporate insurance companies try and get the most profitable people on their books (young and healthy) and then force the government to cover the costs of the nonprofitable people (senior citizens and those with disability payments). This is why parts of the Medicare program is having financial troubles (also because of corporate handouts that keep Medicare from using collective bargaining power to reduce prescription costs) and the insurance companies are having record profits. More insurance companies just multiplies the (already a magnitude higher than Medicare) administrative costs and does nothing to actually bring the skyrocketing costs and copays to sane levels. America does not have even close to the best health care system in the world (yes our technology is good for those who have access, but not the actual care of its citizens as a whole), and only willfully ignorant people pretend it does. This is why medical touring exists, where people fly to other countries for treatment and surgeries because it is cheaper ten doing it in the U.S. Universal coverage and treatment is important for a functional and production population. ("Some US employers have begun exploring medical travel programs as a way to cut employee health care costs." - wikipedia) Also, you'll never actually be rich so stop pretending one day you'll be and that you have to protect the poor rich from the evil government. Taxes are near lowest levels they have ever been, and that is not a healthy thing for the country.
No, he was just ignorant about the multi-thousand dollar a day charges for routine usage, much like most everyone else who isn't a nerd is.
Haha you equated Lower rates to stealing tax payer money. I guess I should go ahead and explain to you that the government isn't subsidizing costs when it stops unfair business practices.
If a simple law that forces carriers to explain possible life crippling charges from routine usages that many people are hit by (because the carriers don't bother to actually explain them) is too complex or expensive, then I can't imagine what you think about actual legislation. You're probably one of those people that cried about the health care bill being x amount of pages long, as though it actually has any fucking relevance to anything at all.
The costs associated with these two scenarios, and the scenarios themselves, have literally absolutely nothing to do with each other. You should reconcile this problem before you form any further opinions on the issue.
So not being able to read the mumbo jumbo that is in legaliese that is proven to even confuse lawyers means it's ok for a company to ass rape you with broken glass?
they do this kind of shit because they can legally get away with it.
D
Deleted member 210069
Guest
Isn't a good portion of this cost the charge that the international tower's owner is charging? This may not be the case (forgive my ignorance if I am wrong), but if the international carrier is charging your personal carrier thousands, I don't expect my carrier to "eat" this cost either. Considering this is more cost than they will make off of you over the life of a contract. If his carrier is charging these gouging rates for no reason (i.e. the internation rates they are charged is minimal) I do think it looks bad for the pitiful amount of money they make off it compared to the bad PR. That said, it is the guy's fault. Too many warnings happen when trying to use international data.
D
Deleted member 210069
Guest
Edit: For some reason above post appeared as a wall-of-text. I promise I had it separated.
Reminds me of this episode of boiling point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLOUVBRf0kU
"-You never said that there would be a $500 charge.
~You didn't ask "
Sure, maybe those students weren't the smartest of all people (or maybe they simply aren't as pessimistic about the world around them) , but what.. does having a signed contract make the sales guy any less of a fraud?
It doesn't take a ignorant person to get hit by a few hundred dollars either. my friend recently got charged an additional $150 while taking a few incoming calls and immediately redirecting the caller to a different phone number.
Really what the phone company is doing is playing a game... "lets see how high we can get these charges without attracting the governments attention"
+1 You said it better than I would have
$150.00 for SMS cracks me up. There's literally no additional cost to the carrier. Vodafone doesn't charge AT&T or anyone else for an SMS on their network.
Now why this guy didn't ask what the charges are is beyond me....but if I was him, I wouldn't pay them either. Virgin will almost certainly write off a good chunk of it. If I was him, I'd sign up with a new carrier, call Virgin and say if they don't come down, he's going to return the phone and bail.....they can mess with is credit, but at 8 grand, i think I'd take the hit on my credit report.
This.
You wouldnt' ask if you weren't aware of it in the first place. And even if you do ask, you get dodged. Hence why you'd easily think "$500.00? A bit steep but i can live with that", and later get hit by a bill you'd need a mortgage to pay off.
There are some scenarios where questions would not be thought of in foresight, but this is a telephone bill we're talking about. You rarely hear about these high bills probably because a vast majority of people knows to ask if they would be charged more making phone calls out of the country.
It's not much different from long distance landline. Everyone knows there's going to be extra charges.
Yes, the charges were much too high nonetheless, but the question still should have been asked.
And the risk should have been explained before the customer left the store.
"And, if you travel internationally, using data and internet may cost you thousands upon thousands of dollars per day for things like streaming music due to carrier to carrier costs. It has happened before to others and we won't waive the costs for you. Be sure to ask if you are unsure about your plan when you travel."
10 second GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS OF DEATH AND COMMUNISM
Did you look at the two scenarios? Have you ever received a service?
Here, i'll go ahead and list out exactly why the services are similiar.
The simplest: They are services. You voluntarily request for another person to perform an action. Not much to say about this as I don't believe there is anything that it proves nor do I believe it will be refuted.
In the cell phone scenario you pay for a service that is routinely charged monthly. With the grocery delivery service, you request a service to be performed one time. Here is where going out of the country comes into play: A different service is offered in this other country. Your normal service that you had before is a null point as the minutes used, data plan etc is not charged at this rate. This different service uses a different pricing scheme but is in place so that you do not get shut out of cellular service. I'm certain it's possible they could shut down the service if you leave the country, but instead the telecommunications companies have opted to allow service to continue using different networks. There's even a clause in your contract telling you what happens in case you leave the country, and multiple horror stories of customers not savvy enough to realize that it could happen to them. I assume these are the same people that don't use birth control on prom night in highschool, since it's "impossible" to get pregnant if its your first time.
I want to stress that in the above scenario the cell service changed from being a subscription service to an on demand service. You don't pay extra per month because you're out of the country, you pay because you use a different service while out of the country.
Cost to deliver service: I'm totally pulling numbers out of my ass and haven't verified them nor will I, but i'm going to guess that to actually deliver service to a cellular device, either within or out of the country, is very low. Specifically that it does not cost near $8,000 to deliver just over 100mb of data. I'm going to make a stretch and liken it to a physical good for this example. I would also venture that the cost to deliver one packet of ramen noodles is fairly high in comparison to the physical good, say $2-5 in gas out of the $5 delivery fee. The end result? High cost of delivery for ramen, low cost of delivery for cellular service.
The only difference in this scenario is how much of a profit the company makes. The cellular company makes a killing while the grocery store simply supplies a customer with a requested service.
The point I was making however is that the cost of a simple service is exorbantly higher in both situations for a fairly simple, low cost good. Paying $5.15 for ramen noodles or paying $8,000 for cellular service is a dumb thing to do.
Bootleg Usher
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2010
- Messages
- 703
Make sure your family member isn't holding a cup of hot coffee when you tell that to them.
When you order ramen you know the price before they deliver. When you stream your music on your phone, you have no idea that it is going to cost EIGTH THOUSAND DOLLARS. The two price hikes are orders of magnitudes different. The fact that you posted that huge post in a vain attempt to rationalize your nonsense should have clued you in to how hollow and unrelated your metaphor is.