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

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> 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?"?
>>
>>
>> Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all *****ed 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?

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

---

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Quick" <[email protected]> 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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:


> >>>>>> 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?"?
> >>
> >>
> >> Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all *****ed 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?
>
> Uhh, hello? They tell you what you get. It's very simple.
> You shouldn't assume anything more than that.

"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
***** 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

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Quick" <[email protected]> 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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in news:WV%Mf.41182
[email protected]:

> From: "Quick"

Damn! You musta been out to lunch! Your attack was almost an HOUR late!

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:27:23 GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> >>>> 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?"?
>>
>>
>> Fortuantely you dont' NEED to ask. It's all *****ed 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

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.

>>>>> "LiRM" == LiRM <[email protected]> ranted:

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...

They lose you, they sign up 300

Adios pal



Ron


"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.
>
> 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 ****er'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 **** ups
> ever implemented.
>
> Yeah, I know I can probably pull a seem off some other phone to get
> this to work, but **** 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 **** am I putting myself
> through all this **** - 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. **** 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

Michael Wise wrote:
> 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!

Are you insane John? 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!!!!

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.

Michael Wise wrote:


> 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.



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

Michael Wise 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.


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.

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

LiRM wrote:

> 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).

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

In <YN8Nf.2372$SJ2.1428@trndny01> on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:46:00 GMT, "RobR"
<[email protected]> 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.

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