FCC to Smack Sprint with $105M Cramming Fine
This is bullshit
TO ALL COMPANIES. These willfully ignorant, irresponsible parents need to EAT the costs of their children being mostly the sole cause and reason for this.
They need to own up to their mistake if it was theirs, or their kids and stop trying to blame a company who only RELAYED the charge to you. You ask for something and ask to have it billed to your "tab" - you then pay the tab - you don't try this scapegoat of "Oh, It was my kid, henceforth, it doesn't count".
Would be funny if the companies denied service to all FCC officials lol. Revoke their accounts and access and tell them to have fun on some MVNO.
They need to own up to their mistake if it was theirs, or their kids and stop trying to blame a company who only RELAYED the charge to you. You ask for something and ask to have it billed to your "tab" - you then pay the tab - you don't try this scapegoat of "Oh, It was my kid, henceforth, it doesn't count".
Would be funny if the companies denied service to all FCC officials lol. Revoke their accounts and access and tell them to have fun on some MVNO.
...
Funny how guys like you constantly blame the customer when the provider screws them over. But you can never show any evidence the customer was wrong. Yet, there is a plenty of evidence that these companies willfully and unethically lied to their customers and wrongfully billed them, which you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to. Your attitude is typical of the customer service reps on this website. Maybe if these companies shed themselves of employees like yourself they would have less scandals to deal with by proxy of having less unethical customer-hating employees.
...
"Would be funny if the companies denied service to all FCC officials lol. Revoke their accounts and access and tell them to have fun on some MVNO."
In that case, the FCC could pull all their spectrum licences. Contrary to popular belief, while companies bid and buy spectrum or so it seems, they are actually paying for indefinite licences that perpetually renew based on terms and conditions the FCC sets forth - The FCC owns all spectrum all the time and can take or give any portion or amount they wish at any time. So if a company like Sprint wanted to do away with the business portion of the government, well the FCC could simply say, "Ok, well then we are taking away your spectrum in *insert band here*" Or they can make a deal with another...
(continues)
In that case, the FCC could pull all their spectrum licences. Contrary to popular belief, while companies bid and buy spectrum or so it seems, they are actually paying for indefinite licences that perpetually renew based on terms and conditions the FCC sets forth - The FCC owns all spectrum all the time and can take or give any portion or amount they wish at any time. So if a company like Sprint wanted to do away with the business portion of the government, well the FCC could simply say, "Ok, well then we are taking away your spectrum in *insert band here*" Or they can make a deal with another...
(continues)
...
Why be personally responsible when we can just blame everybody else and have the government save us from those big bad evil corporations?
I have no problem with going after legitimate scams but ignorant people a scam does not make.
I have no problem with going after legitimate scams but ignorant people a scam does not make.
...
>> but ignorant people a scam does not make.
Ummmmmmmm.... most scams target ignorant people. Just because you're smart enough to dupe someone out of their money doesn't make it moral, ethical, or legal to do so.
Ummmmmmmm.... most scams target ignorant people. Just because you're smart enough to dupe someone out of their money doesn't make it moral, ethical, or legal to do so.
...
Zpike said:
>> but ignorant people a scam does not make.
Ummmmmmmm.... most scams target ignorant people. Just because you're smart enough to dupe someone out of their money doesn't make it moral, ethical, or legal to do so.
Ummmmmmmmm... No.
Buyer Beware. Caveat Emptor and all of that. I'm not even sure where your "just because" remark came from. I already said that real scams should be targeted(ie cramming or falsely misrepresenting products and terms). If your claim is that ignorant people need government protections, then there about 5 billion people on earth who qualify. You might want to get started now if you plan on helping out with that. You will be busy.
...
>>I already said that real scams should be targeted
You just don't think Sprint is settling with the FCC over a "real scam", is that it?
>> then there about 5 billion people on earth who qualify.
You're making my point. Most everyone is ignorant on one point or another, and it is that ignorance which is exploited by scammers. And it's not so much that I believe in a nanny state, because I don't. I avidly hate big government. But I do believe in prosecuting people who are involved in scams. And that is the case in this instance, unless of course you care to present evidence which shows that the carriers weren't actually involved in cramming after all.
You just don't think Sprint is settling with the FCC over a "real scam", is that it?
>> then there about 5 billion people on earth who qualify.
You're making my point. Most everyone is ignorant on one point or another, and it is that ignorance which is exploited by scammers. And it's not so much that I believe in a nanny state, because I don't. I avidly hate big government. But I do believe in prosecuting people who are involved in scams. And that is the case in this instance, unless of course you care to present evidence which shows that the carriers weren't actually involved in cramming after all.
...
Zpike said:
>>I already said that real scams should be targeted
You just don't think Sprint is settling with the FCC over a "real scam", is that it?
>> then there about 5 billion people on earth who qualify.
You're making my point. Most everyone is ignorant on one point or another, and it is that ignorance which is exploited by scammers. And it's not so much that I believe in a nanny state, because I don't. I avidly hate big government. But I do believe in prosecuting people who are involved in scams. And that is the case in this instance, unless of course you care to present evidence which shows that the carriers weren't actually involved in cramming after all.
No. I did not in fact make your ...
(continues)
...
It's not on the defendant to prove innocence. It's on the accuser to prove guilt.
And if you actually read the terms that you accept when you download an app or the fine print at the bottom of a screen when you do a text in joke/ringtone/whatever from a late night commercial you will see that it does indeed lay out exactly what the charges are.
Sure I suppose the carriers could just eliminate the ability to do any 3rd party services all together. Oh wait, then they would get an antitrust lawsuit for restricting the use of competing apps (see article: Google Seeks to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit Over Android). They are either getting sued because they allow too much or because they are too restrictive. Simply put, there is nothing they...
(continues)
And if you actually read the terms that you accept when you download an app or the fine print at the bottom of a screen when you do a text in joke/ringtone/whatever from a late night commercial you will see that it does indeed lay out exactly what the charges are.
Sure I suppose the carriers could just eliminate the ability to do any 3rd party services all together. Oh wait, then they would get an antitrust lawsuit for restricting the use of competing apps (see article: Google Seeks to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit Over Android). They are either getting sued because they allow too much or because they are too restrictive. Simply put, there is nothing they...
(continues)
...
Exactly. But some people would have us believe that Sprint and other carriers are evil and bad because they didn't hold the customer's hand while they purchased the app. Oh and we cannot forget the horrendous crime of not providing a refund for a legitimate charge.
...
Because I felt like you were trying to pick a fight, and had resolved myself to ignore you for the most part. But since you seem more than insistent on having a fight, I see no reason to let this junk post stand.
>>No. I did not in fact make your point.
You're playing on semantics. I explained exactly how that comment agreed with my point. If you failed to understand the point or how it was related to your comment, I really can't do much else besides suggest you take a class on reading comprehension. It is conceivable that I could clarify that point with further elaboration, but I fear that would be an exercise in futility.
>>You have not presented any evidence that these carriers were involved in any scam.
I'm not trying these...
(continues)
>>No. I did not in fact make your point.
You're playing on semantics. I explained exactly how that comment agreed with my point. If you failed to understand the point or how it was related to your comment, I really can't do much else besides suggest you take a class on reading comprehension. It is conceivable that I could clarify that point with further elaboration, but I fear that would be an exercise in futility.
>>You have not presented any evidence that these carriers were involved in any scam.
I'm not trying these...
(continues)
...
Blah blah blah. You sure do say a bunch of nothing with that bloated comment there. Picking a fight with you? As far as I can tell every time you post something it is an effort to pick a fight with someone. Almost everyone of your posts is a comment on how much more knowledgeable you are followed by a demand that someone prove you wrong. How about, for once, prove you are right about something?
No one here wants to fight with you or anyone else but I don't think you are helping your cause when you constantly try to pick fights with anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. You drag your dead horse around with you like it is a security blanket daring anyone to disagree with you so you can prove how good you are at beating the damned thing...
(continues)
No one here wants to fight with you or anyone else but I don't think you are helping your cause when you constantly try to pick fights with anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. You drag your dead horse around with you like it is a security blanket daring anyone to disagree with you so you can prove how good you are at beating the damned thing...
(continues)
...
>>Blah blah blah. You sure do say a bunch of nothing with that bloated comment there.
Can't argue with it, then label it. That's your MO.
>>Picking a fight with you?
Yup, that amounts to about 90% of your comments since you started this account.
>>Almost everyone of your posts is a comment on how much more knowledgeable you are followed by a demand that someone prove you wrong.
More ad hominem from you. Most of my requests for proof are in regards to specific statements people are making. I expect people to be able to back up their assertions, yourself included.
>>How about, for once, prove you are right about something?
I have offered ample proof for my positions. But if you feel something is lacking in proof, pleas...
(continues)
Can't argue with it, then label it. That's your MO.
>>Picking a fight with you?
Yup, that amounts to about 90% of your comments since you started this account.
>>Almost everyone of your posts is a comment on how much more knowledgeable you are followed by a demand that someone prove you wrong.
More ad hominem from you. Most of my requests for proof are in regards to specific statements people are making. I expect people to be able to back up their assertions, yourself included.
>>How about, for once, prove you are right about something?
I have offered ample proof for my positions. But if you feel something is lacking in proof, pleas...
(continues)
...
Blah blah ad hominem, blah blah won't back up anything I say blah blah injustice blah blah broken record blah blah blah.
You would rather right a novel of drivel than actually provide evidence or facts. You hide behind essays of nothing.
You can write the equivalent War and Peace in 12 different languages and it will not change my opinion. Show me just one link that describes the investigation details and the proof of conspiracy and colusion. Show me that and I will admit you are right.
You won't. You can't. I await your new novel. I have a title in mind for you. "Ad Hominem Strawmen of Justice".
You would rather right a novel of drivel than actually provide evidence or facts. You hide behind essays of nothing.
You can write the equivalent War and Peace in 12 different languages and it will not change my opinion. Show me just one link that describes the investigation details and the proof of conspiracy and colusion. Show me that and I will admit you are right.
You won't. You can't. I await your new novel. I have a title in mind for you. "Ad Hominem Strawmen of Justice".
...
>>Blah blah ad hominem, blah blah won't back up anything I say blah blah injustice blah blah broken record blah blah blah.
It's not my fault you make those kinds of arguments. Stop making them.
>>You would rather right a novel of drivel than actually provide evidence or facts. You hide behind essays of nothing.
Such hollow writing should be easy to refute. But you would prefer to dismiss my arguments than refute them. This is really getting old.
>>You can write the equivalent War and Peace in 12 different languages and it will not change my opinion.
Not surprising since there is nothing in War and Peace related to the cramming case.
>>Show me just one link that describes the investigation details and the proof of conspir...
(continues)
It's not my fault you make those kinds of arguments. Stop making them.
>>You would rather right a novel of drivel than actually provide evidence or facts. You hide behind essays of nothing.
Such hollow writing should be easy to refute. But you would prefer to dismiss my arguments than refute them. This is really getting old.
>>You can write the equivalent War and Peace in 12 different languages and it will not change my opinion.
Not surprising since there is nothing in War and Peace related to the cramming case.
>>Show me just one link that describes the investigation details and the proof of conspir...
(continues)
...
Since I started my account? Yeah. I made the mistake of disagreeing with you once and you have been on my ass since. I'm not really sure why you are stalking my profile other than the fact that I called you Batman once and,it just pissed you off. Simple way to avoid me, stop posting to me. I dare you to stop replying to me.
...
>>Since I started my account? Yeah. I made the mistake of disagreeing with you once and you have been on my ass since.
No, you have been purposefully picking a fight with me. Quit lying.
>>I'm not really sure why you are stalking my profile other than the fact that I called you Batman once
Another lie. You have made numerous Batman and other comic book related attacks on my character. Quit pretending to be some victim.
>>Simple way to avoid me, stop posting to me. I dare you to stop replying to me.
I will reply to what I want. And when I grow completely wary of you, I will move on to something else. But that's my decision not yours. You can feel free to stop responding to me whenever you like. It's not like you're actually say...
(continues)
No, you have been purposefully picking a fight with me. Quit lying.
>>I'm not really sure why you are stalking my profile other than the fact that I called you Batman once
Another lie. You have made numerous Batman and other comic book related attacks on my character. Quit pretending to be some victim.
>>Simple way to avoid me, stop posting to me. I dare you to stop replying to me.
I will reply to what I want. And when I grow completely wary of you, I will move on to something else. But that's my decision not yours. You can feel free to stop responding to me whenever you like. It's not like you're actually say...
(continues)
...
This post was edited to fix an html error and is reposted below.
...
Zpike said:
>>Since I started my account? Yeah. I made the mistake of disagreeing with you once and you have been on my ass since.
No, you have been purposefully picking a fight with me. Quit lying.
You are the only one lying.
>>I'm not really sure why you are stalking my profile other than the fact that I called you Batman once
Another lie. You have made numerous Batman and other comic book related attacks on my character. Quit pretending to be some victim.
The only one pretending to be a victim is you. Sad really. My statement isn't a lie either. Since the first time I referred to you as Batman, you have constantly harassed me and you have been doing it since I said...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
