I can't believe this - has Verizon lost its mind?

Michael Wise 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.


> 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:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/s...featureId=2043


>
>> 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.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: I can't believe this - has Verizon lost its mind?

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> 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 bull****. 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 *****ing -- 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

In article <wp3Nf.2338$DT.221@trnddc06>, "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
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

Just FYI, Cingular has been known to cripple firmware as well,
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> 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 BlackBerry® 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

"Quick" <[email protected]> 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.

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. 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.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> 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/s...First&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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> 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

Sorry that you're dissatisfied, but is all that profanity really necessary??

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.

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...

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/g...rAgreement.jsp





--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:52:37 GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> 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 bull****. 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.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:


> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> 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 ****ed 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 ****ed" -- 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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006
21:53:28 GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <wp3Nf.2338$DT.221@trnddc06>, "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
>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 know VZW reps sure has hell don't inform them
>of that.

Baloney.

<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.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> 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/g...OLICY&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