Verizon Offers Settlement To V710 Owners
VZW still thinks its 1980 and it is Ma Bell
This is a great message to VZW even though is will have almost zero financial impact to them. Most of the returns/cancelations/ect from the v710 case will be us enthusiasts/teckies. VZW should have been given a multi-million or even a billion dollar fine for its repeated abuse of its customers through deceptive marketing and outright lies. If anyone ever read the interview floating around the internet with the VZW executive about the handicapping of the V710 would realize their arrogance. VZW is the Frankenstein child of Ma Bell. Remember when you couldn’t actually OWN a telephone (land line); you could only RENT one from them? and Extra Extensions were ILLEGAL? The apple does not fall far from the tree.
...
People honestly just don't care. As you said, it won't hurt them financially and in business that is all there is to it... what will be the most profitable in the short AND long term.
Don't like it? Don't complain, just put your money elsewhere.
Don't like it? Don't complain, just put your money elsewhere.
...
the problem with not complaining is its like not voting if you dont do anything to change the peoblem you are the problem. I think verizon is probably the second worse cell carrier out there and i worked for them for 2 years. i just think all they care about is the bottom line. there is more to business than the bottom line, at least theres more to good business.
...
In the cellphone world your "vote" is which carrier you pay a monthly amount to... it isn't who you whine to the most...
...
chrisnyc said:
Remember when you couldn’t actually OWN a telephone (land line); you could only RENT one from them? and Extra Extensions were ILLEGAL? The apple does not fall far from the tree.
No. How old would one have to be to remember such things?
...
According to AT&T Consumer Lease Services (ATTCLS) spokesman John Skalko: "When the AT&T divestiture became official in January 1984, AT&T spun off the "Baby Bells" but kept the long distance and other ancillary businesses, including the phone equipment rental portion of the business. Under federal guidelines governing the break-up, AT&T notified their 50 million customers that were renting equipment that they had a two year window of opportunity (1984-86) during which they could either:
Purchase the equipment;
Return it, or
Continue renting equipment from AT&T.
The majority of consumers-roughly 48.5 million-took the non-rental option. In 1996 AT&T spun off the equipment-side of their business and created Lucent Technologies (whi...
(continues)
Purchase the equipment;
Return it, or
Continue renting equipment from AT&T.
The majority of consumers-roughly 48.5 million-took the non-rental option. In 1996 AT&T spun off the equipment-side of their business and created Lucent Technologies (whi...
(continues)
...
So prior to 1984, 21 years ago, is when you had to rent?
Im guessing not many in these parts would remember that 🙂
Im guessing not many in these parts would remember that 🙂
...
shadedpain4 said:
So prior to 1984, 21 years ago, is when you had to rent?
Im guessing not many in these parts would remember that 🙂
Don't bother, Shade. He's comparing apples to oranges.
...
chrisnyc said:
VZW should have been given a multi-million or even a billion dollar fine for its repeated abuse of its customers through deceptive marketing and outright lies.
First of all, your constant references to "Ma Bell" are just plain stupid. Ma Bell controlled EVERY aspect of the landline industry up till the late seventies, early eighties. Verizon, on the other hand, has quite a bit of competition...so again, your comparisons are blatantly dumb.
As for Verizon being deserving of a multi-million or billion dollar fine...how'd you figure that one out? Verizon should be punished for the overall stupidity of the American consumer? All one had to do was read which profiles were supported before o...
(continues)
...
well tell me this, how come verizon is the only company that cripples phones like this?
It should be against the law for a service provider to hinder a phones abilities directly from the manufacturer unless it is to make it work with its own network
It should be against the law for a service provider to hinder a phones abilities directly from the manufacturer unless it is to make it work with its own network
...
because you are not buying the phone from motorola, you are buying it from verizon... or cingular, or sprint, or tmobile... get the point? Fact is that it is THEIR phone, just produced my motorola, but it is their software on the phone and they have every right to do what they want with it. My car for example can go 140 mph, but the manufacturer put a govener on it so that it can only do 120... for safety? maybe, but its the same concept. It's people like you that cause most of the stupid lawsuits in america which turns around to smack you in the ass when the cost of services rises due to these lawsuits! I agree with muchdrama, why should verizon be punished for the stupidity of the consumer? or why should any business for that matte...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Then by your logic....VzW was completely in the right with what they did. They actually did have to cripple it to match it to their networks. As a portion of their contract for BREW, VzW could not have OBEX enabled on the phone. Perhaps the first mistake was when Motorola made a VzW liscenced phn with a feature that could not be on VzW. But believe me, the biggest mistake was that the consumers did not investigate (and anyone who works in the industry knows they still don't) what Bluetooth was and what Bluetooth on the v710 was. I'd venture a guess that more than half of the people complaining didn't know that BT could do OBEX, but once they saw their friends w/ GSM phones do it, they had to have it too. For the rest of the people who ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
djdelay said:
But believe me, the biggest mistake was that the consumers did not investigate (and anyone who works in the industry knows they still don't) what Bluetooth was and what Bluetooth on the v710 was.
Whatever happened to caveat emptor? When did it stop being the responsibility of the consumer to know what they consume? It is idiotic but popular views like this that cause the American marketplace to be so expensive and volatile.
And we wonder why the rest of the world views us as "Stupid Americans". Great post, Dj.
...
when did it become ok to lie to consumors? when did it become common place for companys to say one thing and do another or better yet promise one thing and deliver another? there is a oft used but not thought of phrase called bait and switch. Verizon and motorola promised one thing and delivered another. i went to buy my v710 and the sales guy said yeah its got bluetooth. i asked if i could sync it with my computer to dl files and he said yeah everything bluetooth does. so i bought it. and as i said since im so paranoid when i got home and couldnt do these things i promptly returned it. however there are people, and a lot of them that believe what the sales person says. i mean they must know what they are talking about they work for the comp...
(continues)
(continues)
...
mrdeth said:
well tell me this, how come verizon is the only company that cripples phones like this?
It should be against the law for a service provider to hinder a phones abilities directly from the manufacturer unless it is to make it work with its own network
Hey, look...Verizon wants consumers to buy and use their data products only, thus they crippled the Bluetooth profiles necessary to circumvent their policies. They even WROTE IT DOWN ON PAPER for consumers to read. So how is that wrong? Yeesh.
...
Actually what Verizon did wrong was mislead the consumer in writing. It was not wrong to cripple bluetooth. Their network, their choice on what features their phones have.
What was wrong was they did NOT make this clear and actually referred to the 710 having obex in their original literature. When some of the smarter people found out it did not support obex, they were again mislead by being told to wait for the update which would fix the problem. Obviously it did not, but by then the 15 days were up and the consumer was stuck. Why do you think there is a cut off date in this settlement? Because Verizon changed their literature and advertising, making it clear that bluetooth was crippled. After that date, if you bought a V710, you were bein...
(continues)
What was wrong was they did NOT make this clear and actually referred to the 710 having obex in their original literature. When some of the smarter people found out it did not support obex, they were again mislead by being told to wait for the update which would fix the problem. Obviously it did not, but by then the 15 days were up and the consumer was stuck. Why do you think there is a cut off date in this settlement? Because Verizon changed their literature and advertising, making it clear that bluetooth was crippled. After that date, if you bought a V710, you were bein...
(continues)
...
you are exactly right, but dont expect any of the verizon apologist here to agree.
...
Multi-million or Multi-Billion would mean we'd all pay an extra $10 in "recovery fees" ...
...
yeah, and they used to bury those 'recovery fees' in the TAXES AND SURCHARGES section so it looked like it went to the Govt coffers. To mislead people is wrong, plain and simple.
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, which owns the Bluetooth trademark even had to change their charter because Verizon was selling 'BLUETOOTH" that was not really "BLUETOOTH".
http://www.bluetooth.com »
"While all Bluetooth enabled phones should work with Bluetooth car kits, some Bluetooth enabled phones provide greater Bluetooth functionality in the car than others. Often, the automotive manufacturers or wireless carriers have conducted tests and can provide information on their compatibility testing as Verizon Wireless has done for the Motorola v710."
...
(continues)
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, which owns the Bluetooth trademark even had to change their charter because Verizon was selling 'BLUETOOTH" that was not really "BLUETOOTH".
http://www.bluetooth.com »
"While all Bluetooth enabled phones should work with Bluetooth car kits, some Bluetooth enabled phones provide greater Bluetooth functionality in the car than others. Often, the automotive manufacturers or wireless carriers have conducted tests and can provide information on their compatibility testing as Verizon Wireless has done for the Motorola v710."
...
(continues)
...
chrisnyc said:...
yeah, and they used to bury those 'recovery fees' in the TAXES AND SURCHARGES section so it looked like it went to the Govt coffers. To mislead people is wrong, plain and simple.
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, which owns the Bluetooth trademark even had to change their charter because Verizon was selling 'BLUETOOTH" that was not really "BLUETOOTH".
http://www.bluetooth.com »
"While all Bluetooth enabled phones should work with Bluetooth car kits, some Bluetooth enabled phones provide greater Bluetooth functionality in the car than others. Often, the automotive manufacturers or wireless carriers have conducted tests and can provide information on their compatibility testing as Verizon Wireles
(continues)
...
I am in 100 percent agreement with you, Just because VZW inherited the bandwith under the System A / System B split does not make them "competitive". They are an incumbent wireless carrier. That through some moves bought more bandwidth.
They were most reliable since they were the only ones with Analog towers where Digital was not available.
However that picture may change since they went all digital. With a compression set similar to GSM
to narrow the bandwidth used by the call down. With thin (narrow) codecs (like GSM) you get dropped phrases and sentances when the network experiences latency and congestion. And at transmission power of 6/10th's it will miss a few bytes here and there.
VZW Stepped far away from what Qualicom ...
(continues)
They were most reliable since they were the only ones with Analog towers where Digital was not available.
However that picture may change since they went all digital. With a compression set similar to GSM
to narrow the bandwidth used by the call down. With thin (narrow) codecs (like GSM) you get dropped phrases and sentances when the network experiences latency and congestion. And at transmission power of 6/10th's it will miss a few bytes here and there.
VZW Stepped far away from what Qualicom ...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
