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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:14:00 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> 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]

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

---

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> 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/g...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

In article <MJ3Nf.7253$FY1.3879@trndny06>, "RobR" <[email protected]>
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

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

>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.

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.

>
>>
>> >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

Michael Wise wrote:

> 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 ***** 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.



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

John Navas wrote:

>> 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.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:28 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> 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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree (as in so many other cases).

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

Michael Wise 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

Michael, you really need to stop acting like an uninformed ass. Really,
I'm tired of being your personal Google.


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

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? 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.


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

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Levy <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> 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

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

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:08:49 -0500, LiRM <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:40:06 GMT, "Quick"
><[email protected]> 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 ****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.
>>
>>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 **** 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 **** 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).
>>
>>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 ****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. 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.
>>
>>

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:26:27 GMT, Michael Wise <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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


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.

Michael Wise 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. I think we can all say that you are greedy scum
for not sharing some of that excess wealth with those less
fortunate.

-Quick