×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon Sues FCC over 700MHz Open Access Rules

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the hit-em-where-it-hurts dept.

The Courts 115

Carterfone writes "Verizon is upset at the open access conditions for the 700MHz spectrum auction, and they're going to court to get them overturned. The company has filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging the court to overturn the rules. 'In its petition for review, Verizon argues that the FCC exceeded its authority in mandating the two open access conditions, accusing the Commission of being "arbitrary" and "capricious," and saying that the rules are "unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." Google is critical of Verizon's lawsuit: 'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

115 comments

first porn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20595853)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Re:first porn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20599857)

Oh come on... quit posting this story you fucktard!

What day is it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20595879)

Suesday?

Verizon. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20595953)

You mean we don't have to use devices restricted to Verizon's crippleware?

> Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks.

No wonder they're pissed.

Verizon: We never stop working... for ourselves.

Re:Verizon. (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603835)

i wish they weren't so schizophrenic. verizon toed the industry line about Wireless Local Number Portability for a long time, too, but were eventually the first major carrier to back off. why? they realized they simply have the best network out there and could compete favorably on that. and, as they expected, it worked out very well for them.

they really do have the best network. if only they didn't get everything else wrong...

Free phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604735)

I looked at Verison's phones. Some could play MP3s, which I thought was cool. But then I learned that you couldn't just rip your own MP3s and then use those as a ringtone....you had to pay a yearly fee for a ringtone, and your options were limited to those that Verizon (or their partners) provided.

That made me angry because there is no technological reason why I shouldn't be able to play whatever ringtone I want on an MP3-capable phone. It's just choice-deprivation and fee-gluttony.

My unlocked phone (which Verizon wouldn't accept) works great on T-Mobile's network.

Vendors that give me the freedom I want, get the money they want.

Shaking Heads (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20595961)

If there were any justice at all in the Universe, any statement by Verizon declaring it's support with consumers, or battling for them, would lead to the entire board of directors' heads exploding simultaneously while a hundred rabid ducks danced about singing "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man".

But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.

Re:Shaking Heads (1)

Lord_Breetai (66113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596147)

If there were any justice at all in the Universe, any statement by Verizon declaring it's support with consumers, or battling for them, would lead to the entire board of directors' heads exploding simultaneously while a hundred rabid ducks danced about singing "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man".

But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.
And lawyers, don't forget the lawyers.

Re:Shaking Heads (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596269)

But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.

That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.

Re:Shaking Heads (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597247)

That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.

I have to play devil's advocate here...

1. Are you SURE there's nothing to be done?

2. Would you please define "practical", as used above?

3. Are you including illegal methodologies?

I'm not trying to quibble, but I've rarely found a situation SO dire that NOTHING could be done...

Fight against Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20595971)

Well how much would it cost to get a page in Wall Street Journal, or NY Times and tell people to beware of Verizon, boycott them and explain why?
We really don't need them throwing a hissy fit in a time like this.
I for one do not want them to restrict the market any more than they already have.

Re:Fight against Verizon (2, Informative)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596063)

$181,692 for the Times, http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm [nypost.com]>apparently*. Of course you'd have to convince them to take it though, since I think Verizon may not appreciate the ad, and may offer the potential for greater profit in the future than a handful of angry technies complaining about something most people are blissfully unaware of.

* - this was just picked as the first result I got for the search for the price. No need to pay too much attention to the content.

Re:Fight against Verizon (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596439)

And assuming your $181.692.00 buys oyu many readers at all, with subscriptions down as far as they are. Better off using AdSense.

Re:Fight against Verizon (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596579)

Well, your own link says they discounted the "Betray Us" ad, so maybe they'd discount us. Let's put a fair price at $120k-$150k. There have got to be more than 12,000 people in America that believe Verizon is wrong, if they all gave $10...

Then again, the "Distributed Cash-Mob" model hasn't worked for very much in the past; using the very same models we could have financed legal playback for our favorite free software media players and the like.

Re:Fight against Verizon (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603921)

More disinformation from the right wingers:

"There's just one problem. The $65,000 rate is the Times' normal rate for an advocacy ad from a non-profit group, according to newspaper spokeswoman Catherine Mathis."

no suprise (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20595991)

Verizon has always been about lock in and keeping away choice. That is why they never wanted to go with a sim card based cellphone system. it eliminates your ability to buy a unlocked phone and activating it without them getting their "fees" in their sideways.

Verizon wants you to do it their way, and really wants to force it upon you. when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.

Re:no suprise (0)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596311)

Uh, no, that would have something to do with that CDMA was a more attractive and cheaper-to-implement cellular system at the time.
Sorry, no conspiracy there.
*EVERY* phone carrier in the US *was* just as bad as Verizon.
p.s. you can add an unlocked CDMA phone (if you can find one) to your Verizon plan using a form online.
Verizon do have terrible customer service and screw over the customer repeatedly, but that *WAS* just an American phone company thing.
This lawsuit makes them several times worse than the rest of the phone carriers though.

Re:no suprise (3, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596461)

IS-95/CDMA2000 has supported R-UIMs, the Qualcomm equivalent of the SIM card, for about five years now, but Verizon doesn't issue R-UIMs. They can provide them, they choose not to.

Re:no suprise (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603771)

this is true, but not really relevant. the real issue isn't a removable ID card, but device locking. the US-based GSM operators have just as bad lock-in as Verizon, even with SIM cards in all their devices. being able to move your number around yourself is certainly a nice feature, but isn't what determines this level of lock-in.
it's also worth noting that R-UIM uptake globally has been quite poor and the phone selection is much smaller (nice chicken-and-egg problem there).

Re:no suprise (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604363)

The GSM operators in the US lock the devices they themselves sell, but you can always buy compatible unlocked equipment and expect it to work. (I, personally, never buy a carrier phone as my primary phone, and this goes back as long as when GSM finally came to this part of Florida, about five years ago.)

You don't get the situation with the US GSM operators that you do in the IS-95 world where Sprint PCS (for a long time, possibly still) did not take unlocked devices, Verizon and Sprint have an agreement not to permit each other's devices to be activated on the rival network even when unlocked, MVNOs are forbidden by Sprint from activating rival's devices, etc.

The SIM/R-UIM cards themselves create an expectation that activation is at the user's whim, not the operator's. The US GSM operators honor that expectation, whereas users of IS-95 networks generally have no expectation that a particular device will ever work on their network unless their operator "approves" it according to arbitrary rules that make no sense from an customer point of view.

BTW I was wrong in describing R-UIMs as a Qualcomm thing, I've looked into them a little and they're essentially for all the TIA digital standards (IS-95, IS-136, and the 3G versions thereof.) I don't think anyone ever bothered making IS-136 phones (D-AMPS) that supported it because the standard was effectively dead by the time R-UIMs came along. You're correct in saying take-up has been low amongst operators, but that's really the problem isn't it?

Re:no suprise (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597993)

p.s. you can add an unlocked CDMA phone (if you can find one) to your Verizon plan using a form online.

Really? Sprint will only activate phones that it has sold and verified by the ESN. I tried to activate a Quest phone that was the same exact model as the Sprint version but they refused to do it. I had the MSL as well. A side story but the most frustrating part of this is I had called Sprint before I bought the phone and gave them the ESN. They verified it was clear and that it could be activated. When I got the phone I called to activate it and they said no can do, the ESN does not exist in their system. The first CS rep I had called lied about the phone and left no case notes. I was SOL. Rumor has it that getting your ESN and phone information into the Sprint database is a relatively easy task but finding the right person at Sprint to do it for you is just about impossible.

Re:no suprise (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20602399)

When Verizon was founded, the majority of networks operating in the US were AMPS and TDMA (IS-136) CDMA was the "new thing" Sure Europe had started implementing GSM before Verizon existed, but there were hard limits to all TDMA encoded systems. CDMA in theory had less stringent limits per tower as there was always room for "just one more" call. IS-136, GSM, and iDEN all have fixed time slots per phone where each phone can only transmit during its specified time allocated to it. Once all slots are full, the tower will be unable to service any more connections. CDMA phones can transparently operate from multiple towers. CDMA can also handle 8 to 10 times as many calls per tower than AMPS and 4 to 5 times as many calls per tower than GSM. This is why all 3G implementations (as long as you don't consider EDGE 3G) are in some way CDMA based. EVDO is based on CDMA as well as UMTS/HSDPA.

The other thing was unlike today only real hackers had been unlocking phones. By sticking to an ESN based system, it was easier to integrate with existing systems since AMPS, IS-136 and CDMA all used ESNs. Presumably the database of ESNs could all be stored together with existing customers.

Re:no suprise-DETAILS PLEASE (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596633)

when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.

Details please. I love a good smackdown!

Re:no suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20597781)

I hate verizon, but they do allow you to use other devices on their network. I got a Motorola Q from a friend and all I had to do was call up with the IEMI number to activate it. No problem. I was still under contract (a little less than a year left), but it didn't extend my contract or anything.. AFAIK.

Fortunately, I bought an iPhone last thursday and kicked Verizon to the curb. I love how people like to bitch about Apple's lock-in.. well that's only if you choose to buy their products among many other (allegedly better) products! Verizon locks you into their entire network and way of doing things, and they're one of the biggest carriers in the nation. Everything is MY PIX/MY FLIX/MY ANNOYING NAMES. Bluetooth is crippled beyond belief. My Samsung phone might have had a decent menu system if it wasn't replaced with verizon's crap. The whole company makes me feel like I'm in some parallel "you'll do it our way or else" universe.

I really didn't mind paying the $150 or whatever cancellation fee to get rid of those assholes.

Don't get me started on how my work-provided mobile data card drops every day during peak hours... "sorry, network too busy, goodbye!"

By the way, the Q was only marginally useful as a data device, and utterly worthless as a phone. I'm sorry, I don't want to have to reboot my phone constantly to make sure I didn't miss any calls and corresponding voicemail while I had a perfectly strong signal, just because the phone couldn't be bothered to tell me about them. Not to mention I once got 11 hours of battery life on a charge even with the extended battery. Apps don't exit, you have to kill them. The phone constantly hangs and slows down. The password input menu can lock you into a screen where you get lost and can't get out without rebooting it. I've heard Windows Smartphone or Mobile or CE or Compact Framework or whatever the fuck they're calling it, is halfway decent on the Samsung Blackjack. On the Q it's an unholy alliance of the world's worst cellphone maker and the world's worst software company.

GOOD RIDDANCE, VERIZON!

Re:no suprise (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597935)

In their sideways? What's a sideways? How many sideways does Verizon have? How do the fees go into their sideways? Is a sideway like a bag or a satchel, or more like a pocket? or is it more like a bank account?

Re:no suprise (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604029)

Verizon has always been about lock in and keeping away choice.
not always. for a long time, they repeated what every other operator in the country said about Wireless Local Number Portability: bad for the industry, unfair, will ruin everything, we'll all go out of business, and that won't help anyone. then one day they realized "hey, we've got the best network in the country. i bet people want to use verizon!" and they decided to support WLNP. first major operator in the country to do so. and they were right: worked out really well for them (worked out really well for most of the large operators, except Sprint). took them a long time, but they eventually got it. sadly, that's more the excepting than the rule.

That is why they never wanted to go with a sim card based cellphone system.
that's a misunderstanding of history and technical reality. when Verizon went digital, CDMA didn't have R-UIM (the modern CDMA equivalent of a GSM SIM card) as an option, and CDMA was far superior to GSM in terms of cost, data rates, and efficient use of resources (it's still ahead, but GSM has closed the gap in most areas - in part, by incorporating lots of CDMA technology). R-UIM uptake has been very poor globally, resulting in (or caused by? who knows) a much narrower selection of R-UIM capable phones.

it eliminates your ability to buy a unlocked phone and activating it without them getting their "fees" in their sideways.
first: it does no such thing. all US-based GSM operators lock their phones. the device ID is transmitted to the network even in SIM-based GSM networks, and the operators can make decisions about how to handle individual devices (note their ability to deactivate stolen phones). the fact that GSM operators don't restrict bringing phones onto their network has much more to do with market forces.
second: Verizon acts the same way. i've brought non-verizon-purchased phones onto their network without issue: call up customer service, read them the phone's ID, say thank you.

Surprise! (4, Funny)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596015)

Can you hear me now? No? Good.
Can you hear me now? No? Good.

Re:Surprise! (-1, Offtopic)

Myopic (18616) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597955)

The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits. -Albert Einstein

Dude, did Einstein incorrectly punctuate that sentence, was it someone who passed on that quote, or was it you? That semicolon makes no sense whatsoever. A colon would be okay, or nothing at all; but not a comma, and certainly not a semicolon. Do yourself a favor and just eliminate it.

"for the consumer!" (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596033)

'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"

That's pretty funny, coming from a company which prohibited its Adword customers from discussing anything about the Adwords program with others.

Google late paying you one month? Don't post anything about it on your website, or boom, you weren't a customer anymore. I took a quick glace through the terms and couldn't find it; maybe they finally nix'd it.

PS: We're not CONSUMERS. We are PEOPLE, who MAY be CUSTOMERS.

Re:"for the consumer!" (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596559)

I for one am very curious as to what Google plans on doing with that part of the spectrum. It is almost a sure thing that they'd unveil some sort of network, but I'm curious as to how they plan on actually using it.

Probably ad supported, but seems like we're getting closer and closer all the time to a Google antitrust investigation, the way that MS was investigated. To some extent it surprises me that Google was allowed to purchase double click. Should Google purchase that part of the spectrum and fund it with its own ads without relevant bidding from other companies, that might very well be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Not that I hate Google, but they are getting awfully close to the basic position that MS was in prior to the start of their own antitrust problems.

That's definitely not to say that I wouldn't use their network. I would have to see how well it worked and the specifics about how the agreement went and how reliable it is, but a network in that part of the spectrum would likely be very useful.

Re:"for the consumer!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20601149)

How can you think "antitrust" in this context, when we are discussing an area completely different to Google's current core business, and in which they would have enormous competition?

Wahhh (5, Insightful)

RevHawk (855772) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596053)

Hey Verizon? Too bad. You don't own anything. The airwaves are OURS, no matter what our corrupt FCC/DOJ want to lead you to believe.

Re:Wahhh (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597723)

Hey Verizon? Too bad. You don't own anything. The airwaves are OURS, no matter what our corrupt FCC/DOJ want to lead you to believe.

I don't care what the FCC leads anyone else to believe. The FCC themselves believe that they own the airwaves and they have proven time and time again that they are going to do with them what they see fit.

Remember, we don't get to choose who runs the FCC and that's a serious fucking problem. We own the spectrum and thus the FCC should be a group of elected officials that can be fucking bounced when the general voting public decides they should go. Unfortunately, they're not and they get to make these assholish decisions to kill "indecency" and open spectrum for bidding and not give a fucking cent of that money back to those that own it.

I'd love to see those fucking franchise fees, random other taxes on my various telecom bills, and reduced rate Internet exist because of the money the FCC collected from the sale.

Until that happens, we don't own shit.

Re:Wahhh (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597927)

fixed it for you,
the FCC

I don't care what the FCC leads anyone else to believe. The FCC themselves believe that they own the airwaves and they have proven time and time again that they are going to do with them what they see fit.

Remember, we don't get to choose who runs the FCC and that's a serious ****ing problem. We own the spectrum and thus the FCC should be a group of elected officials that can be ****ing bounced when the general voting public decides they should go. Unfortunately, they're not and they get to make these ****lish decisions to kill "indecency" and open spectrum for bidding and not give a ****ing cent of that money back to those that own it.

I'd love to see those ****ing franchise fees, random other taxes on my various telecom bills, and reduced rate Internet exist because of the money the FCC collected from the sale.

Until that happens, we don't own ****.

Re:Wahhh (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20600499)

Here's a nice contribution for the congress man who gave you the apointment. Now I don't want you to think this is a bribe I was just uncomfortable with $50K in cash in my pocket.

Writer not from Slashdot (4, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596057)

"Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."

I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".

Re:Writer not from Slashdot (1)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596385)

I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".

Man, no kidding...

Hmm...let's try the New Slashdot Spelling on for size...

"It makes me loose confidence in the American education system when people have such lose spelling standards. When you can't even spell such simple words, you're hopelessly loost. Heaven help us when such people are losed upon the world."

Bah. I think I'll stick with my old, curmudgeonly way of spelling these words. Damn kids these days... :-D

Re:Writer not from Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20596505)

I don't think that's a misspelling. Here's some usage.

You better not lose that bet.
That skanky girl is so damn loose.

Re:Writer not from Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20597873)

I don't think that's a misspelling. Here's some usage.

You are such a har tard.

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20596631)

I find that completely rediculous. Its rediculous in thought, that Slashdotter's would ever be caught making simple spelling mistakes, and rediculous in action, that you would post it here.

Rediculous, rediculous, rediculous.

Re:Writer not from Slashdot (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599149)

"Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."
I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".


They also misspelled Rumpelstiltskin.

I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

IonHand (646698) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596121)

I was hesitating to sign up with Verizon as my wireless carrier a year ago. I still have 1 year left on my contract and I don't want to feed money into a company that acts like this. Now I'm stuck giving Verizon my money for another year, how do I get out of this bull shit without doing the costly termination crap!?!

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

prothid (302906) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596231)

Verizon pro-rates their termination fees. You could also try to find someone that will buy your phone and inherit the rest of your contract for you. I know that there is at least one website that lets you post/search for contracts to trade.

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596251)

I don't know what it's like in the States, but with Bell Mobility in Canada you can put your phone on freeze which basically holds your phone number, but you get no service whatsoever. I think it's around $8CAD a month. I believe you can still have voicemail on the account, which would wind up being ~$15 a month for an answering machine...

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596295)

Write down your complaints into a letter to give to Verizon when you do terminate. Like what they are doing now or not, you did sign up with them for a contract.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the same boat until March. I do plan to terminate my service with them primarily on their constrictive practices. What I find particularly distasteful is that they push legislation that practically makes it a legal requirement to bleed their customers with fees. Fees that seem to inevitably return to Verizon's pockets.

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (5, Insightful)

lb746 (721699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596317)

Try and find a place where your phone is roaming in another network, but covered by your "nation wide roaming plan". Generally your phone will show something like "Cingular network" on the phone. Make a phone call from that area during your "free nights and weekends minutes", and just leave that phone on as long as you can in that area. I actually went as far as to put my phone into a ziplock bag on vibrate and hid it in some bushes so it could sit there until the battery died. I could go daily to pick it up before work and drop it back off after work. Within 2 weeks my contract was canceled by Verizon without any termination charges.

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (2, Interesting)

whirred (182193) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596575)

It's actually quite easy, particularly if you have a phone eligible for their "unlimited" data plan like a Treo or something similar.

Sign up for their "unlimited" data plan, plug in your phone, get a nice big SD card, and download like crazy. They'll get rid of you as a customer within 10 days and release you from your contract.

Just so you all know, their "unlimited" data plan does not allow you to download music or video... You can do it, but it's technically against what they authorize.

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596989)

how do I get out of this bull shit without doing the costly termination crap!?!

Call customer service..... a lot.

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

sabersaw5 (927364) | more than 6 years ago | (#20598775)

check out slickdeals those guys are always finding ways to stick it to the man

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#20600009)

i'm sure the early term fee would be less than you'd pay over the next year in monthlies. doesn't verizon pro-rate that shit now based on how long you stuck around??

Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (1)

gmor (769112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20600353)

Always check the fine print at the back of your bill for price increases. For example, last month's statement said that Verizon will pass onto its customers an increase in the California PUC surcharge. Since this is a fee to Verizon that they willingly forward to their customers, it is considered a Verizon fee increase, so I have the right under the ToS to end service without an early termination fee. It took some arguing, but by pointing to the clear wording on the back of the bill and the terms of service, I got a promise by a manager to waive ETF when I switch carriers.

Does Verizon want to piss off even more people.... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596153)

First you have 5gb limit you unlimited data plan.

You also lock down your phones to fore people to use the data planes so they pay to get photos off of the phone.

You hire people who don't know that $0.002 and 0.002 cents are not the same number.

You also put your poor UI on most of your phones.

What do you want to do next to rip us off?

This maybe way you did not get the iPhone.

Re:Does Verizon want to piss off even more people. (1)

dido (9125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599413)

Just to be pedantic, $0.002 is actually 0.2 cents, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure you meant to say something slightly different.

Re:Does Verizon want to piss off even more people. (1)

absoluteflatness (913952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599883)

No, that's what he meant to say. There's a fairly widely publicized case of a man having quite a bit of trouble getting Verizon reps to understand and admit the difference between .002 cents and .002 dollars.

Look at http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

For details on this event... (1)

StringBlade (557322) | more than 6 years ago | (#20601139)

check out* http://verizonmath.com/ [verizonmath.com]

*I have no affiliation with this site, I simply did a search to find the "Verizon Can't Do Math" YouTube video, but it appears to have been removed and this site came up first in my results.

Re:Does Verizon want to piss off even more people. (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603309)

What amuses me is that after all above, there are thousands of fools in Verizon stores THIS moment, signing up "I hereby give Verizon all the rights to fuck me from various direction using all the various holes in my body while being tied to painful things with painful things, gagged with various organic and inorganic materials. I accept, that in return, Verizon will let me make some phone calls for which I will have to pay out of my sore ass."

But then, I should not be surprised by this. After all, its just genetics at work - coming from AT&T.

I am just thankful to T-mobile for just existing in this country. In case they go down, I will just stop using mobile phones.

Re:Does Verizon want to piss off even more people. (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603701)

I don't like Verizon very much, but calling my fiancee's T-Mobile phone is a lesson in annoyance. Her phone constantly drops calls, routinely doesn't get any signal where my phone has it, and often (maybe 15%-20% of the time) won't even connect when it does have a signal. It's not the hardware, either, since it's been like that with every phone she's tried (and her friends have T-Mobile as well with the same issues.) Other times it's just "network too busy" errors when trying to call.

Until I see consistent coverage and a network that lets me actually make calls when I should be able to, I'll stick with Verizon, because I can at least make the calls I need to make, even if I'm getting raped to do so.

Running Scared (4, Insightful)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596163)

This shows you how scared the carriers are about these rules and Google getting hold of the bands.

Verizon's move vacates its primary contention. The open access rules are going to make the bidding intense because those who want to keep the other two open access rules off the table are going to being bidding heavily. Moreover, it is quite likely that Verizon and others will, if the two existing open access rules stick, attempt to buy up the bands and then simply not build or activate the infrastructure, thereby trapping consumers into the other bands where they are not subject to these rules.

Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.

Re:Running Scared (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20596341)

They wont be able to keep the bands dark. If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years. I don't think any of these companies have the chops to spend $5B or more for band width, $5-$15Bn more on federally mandated build out and not put them to use.

Re:Running Scared (2, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596445)

If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years.

If you would have read those very same rules a bit more closely, you would realize that the Public Safety bands and the Commercial bands are two different bands being auctioned off independently. The "C" block auction is the one that has these two rules attached that Verizon is trying to get thrown out.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070815-700mhz-auction-whats-really-up-for-grabs-and-why-it-wont-be-monopolized.html for more info.

Re:Running Scared (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20596351)

They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause. The winner of the auction must build up infrastructure (or convert existing owned infrastructure) to deliver to a certain percentage of the population within 2 years, and then a larger one in 5 years - don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.

Re:Running Scared (2, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596493)

"The 22MHz C block also comes with requirements: 40 percent coverage within four years, 75 percent coverage within 10. The FCC will automatically reclaimed "unserved portions of the license area" from companies that do not meet the build-out requirements."

What they didn't say is This spectrum should be available to the public under fair and decent pricing or anything of the like; they only added the two "Google Caveats". The phone companies could build up the entire infrastructure on top of existing infrastructure, even use it internally to shuffle data around, and only offer public access at any exorbitant price they choose to offer. These companies have made it an art form of prying spectrum away from the government, there's absolutely no reason to think things will change unless we impose changes on them.

Re:Running Scared (2, Insightful)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597537)

They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause ... I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.

Yeah, as if that's going to deter the telcos from not breaking the agreement, just like they didn't build out the internet infrastructure the way they promised after getting a pile of tax breaks and other "incentives" from the government. What was the smackdown they got for that? Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought.

You guys don't get it, do you? Big monopoly-sized business owns the government these days. The days where your "representatives" actually represented you are long, long gone. Government-imposed "rules" mean nothing to these guys. They're just another soundbite to quell the masses. The big businesses know this. The government knows this. Only the clueless masses don't.

Welcome to the new, kinder, gentler fascism. Enjoy your stay.

Re:Running Scared (2, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599213)

Except that the day they win the auction, they start lobbying congress for extensions, due to "technical issues" that are making it harder to roll out service. And that open access thing? Well, that's much harder than we thought too. Gonna take more time, like, about another 8 years. Yea, just long enough for a new FCC chairman to be appointed by a new President, one who will forget all about this silly open access/90% roll-out clause.

Re:Running Scared (3, Insightful)

gravos (912628) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596431)

I don't think you guys are giving the parent enough credit. Verizon may follow the letter of the agreement, but they certainly wouldn't follow the spirit.

Re:Running Scared (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596975)

Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.

What?

Why does Verizon care if the Government gets the revenue?

I don't understand why the open access rules would make any difference to the existing carriers if they just want to leave the band unused.

Re:Running Scared (1)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597649)

If they buy the bands with the open access rules on them, they have to leave them unused (unused = complying so narrowly with the FCC requirements that the bands are effectively underutilized) and therefore it's a very expensive way to protect their existing position. It protects one revenue stream, but does not add another. If they can get the open access rules off, then they can treat the bands as just an extension of their existing anti-competitive position and use it as extra bandwidth unchallenged.

They don't want to be stuck with a band they just pay interest on to keep it off the market for all intents and purposes. They also don't want to see someone buy up the band who would seriously consider the other two proposals that Google made that the FCC chose not to enforce, because that would open them up to a raving mob of competitors. For companies that have implicitly colluded with their oligarchic fellows for decades, that's essentially the apocalypse. Therefore, billions are at stake, either in opportunity cost squatting on underutilized bandwidth bought at a steep price, or having fat profit margins obliterated.

Re:Running Scared (1)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20600275)

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but this just doesn't make sense. Any qualified bidder could voluntarily adopt the open access rules, thus forcing anyone who didn't want the bands subject to those rules to outbid that bidder. I can't see how this restriction could possibly raise the value of the bands -- it only takes some applications off the table, applications that might be worth more than the open access ones.

Those who want to keep open access rules off the table would still have to outbid companies like Google who might voluntarily impose those rules if they won the auction.

Suppose I was offering a truck for auction. I might say "the buyer must use the truck to haul gravel" thinking this would make gravel haulers compete more heavily for the truck to stop their competitors from getting a cheap truck. But any gravel hauler could buy the truck anyway, so the gravel haulers and everyone else will bid without the restriction.

I think you argument doesn't make sense, though it's possible that it might still make sense for some more complex reason that I can't quite see.

Those annoying network commercials (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596243)

You know, the ones with a few thousand multicultural workers and the insufferable "Can you hear me now" guy all standing behind the overly satisfied customer? They should all be replaced with rich, old, white males.

On a side, and hopefully not-downmod note, I'd love to see Jared from Subway and the Verizon guy in a death-cage match.

All should be able to tell that I'm a less-than-satisfied Verizon customer.

Re:Those annoying network commercials (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596591)

I met the "can you hear me now?" dude (Paul, I think it was) about a year or 2 ago. On more than one occasion, I've vowed to kick his ass if I ever met him, but I didn't. It's like he said, "hey, they pay me and I don't have to do anything." Hell, I wouldn't turn the job.

Why Verizon's Claims are Total B.S. (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596563)

Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks. After the FCC's decision, Verizon quickly made its position clear. "Imposing any such requirements in the competitive wireless market would reduce the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction and limit the introduction of new and innovative wireless services,"

Total B.S.! If I can use any device, then I can use the most innovative devices from anyone building them. If Version provides the most new and innovative wireless services at a fair price, they get my business. If someone else does, my business goes there. In short, Version contradicts themselves in the very same sentence.

As for reducing the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction, like how does that happen? Is Verizon going to pay a bazillion dollars for the spectrum if you have to buy only their devices and services afterwards, and that no one will buy a single Hz of it otherwise? I doubt that!

It's all such total B.S. from Verizon that nobody should be taking them seriously for a single instant -- and throw those blighters out of court!

Re:Why Verizon's Claims are Total B.S. (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20598857)

It may be true that they will pay more if they can charge more for less services and keep competitors out.

The problem is, is that this is a national resource and the decision should also consider what the bidder is going to do with the spectrum and how much they are going to charge the consumer. These resources should be used in interest of citizens and not the monopoly which would like to hoard a limited resource which it uses as bat to beat it's own customers.

Hey Verizon! (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596605)

Hey Verizon,

If you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the auction. You won't be missed. In fact, given that you already have the phone service side of the duopoly, I'd prefer that you not be part of this anyway! Pick up the toys you tossed out of the pram, and just go home.

A good example here (3, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596625)

This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?

If any of you ever felt like you might want to write some letters or make some phone calls, this would be a good time. Keep in mind that Verizon won't be hurt in any way if they don't get this frequency band. It's you and I that'll get hurt if they do...

Re:A good example here (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20597199)

This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?

The American courts will probably follow the law as written. If it gives the FCC the power to make this decision, they'll tell Verizon to go whistle, if it doesn't they'll say the same to the FCC. In great detail.

The place to buy the law is in congress. Federal judges are pretty much immune to external pressure due to the appointment system. In high-profile stuff like this it's really hard to keep a bribe hidden and and their decisions will be scrutinized so they try to make them clear and correct in order to optimize their future career paths.

Regrettable but predictable (4, Informative)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596641)

Ask the CLECs about Verizon's willingness to abuse the courts to get what they want. 10 years after passage of the 1996 Telecomm Act, the unbundling rules were finally finalized. But only because Verizon finally stopped suing. And they only stopped because they couldn't gut the 1996 Act, or gut broadband competition, any further.

I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.

I'm not sure I understand all the ins and outs but (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596715)

all I know if that if it's something one of the baby bells wants (which Verizon is one, despite its name), I don't like it.

Not one bit!

Terminating not that hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20596753)

I'm told that terminating your account with Verizon isn't as hard as they would like it to seem. What you do is to say that you are moving to an area where there is no coverage or bad coverage. If you actually use their service, you know where some of these places are.

They will send a guy out there to go "You can't hear me now?" and when he gets no answer they'll release you from your contract. This is only something I've heard of but if you have tried this, please post your experience.

Re:Terminating not that hard (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 6 years ago | (#20596813)

Yeah my Verizon guy told me that they've actually started prorating the termination fee so if you're nearing the end of your contract, it's much cheaper to break than if you broke near the beginning. At least they have that going for them...

Selling spectrum is short sighted idea (4, Insightful)

cozytom (1102207) | more than 6 years ago | (#20598479)

The future is coming fast, and the sold spectrum is a problem.

Imagine the day you are carrying a little device in your pocket. This device is an all in one thing. It has a software defined radio in it, a reasonable sized display (3in diagonal maybe, 800x600 pixels?), some kind of keyboard, a microphone and a speaker. You can make phone calls, instant message, and almost any other form of communication. The infrastucture is WiFi, WiMax, CDMA, GSM, 3/4G, point to point, HDTV, AM, FM, XM, Sirius, GPS, pager, bluetooth and zigbee on whatever frequency is appropriate (remember software defined radio, it can do all of this in software).

You pick up the device, it has an address. You wish to communicate with someone else, they have an address. The device knows them, and their address. Through the infrastructure, Your device can find their device, picking the most suitable communication mechanism available. If they are in the same room, it'll do point to point, if they are in the same building, it'll do WiFi. Across town, maybe your device will do CDMA, and theirs will do GSM. Want to send email to someone, it'll figure out a route.

The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.

Sure verizon and ATT will scream, it isn't good for anyone. But actually it will work in their and our best interest. Their infrastructure could be more efficiently used (won't have to handle calls to the guy in the next cube). Sure we may have to pay what it costs to utilize their network instead of a flat fee, with silly gimicks. Initial purchase price will a little high (device not bundled with the service). They won't have to service the devices, or they could, if they build their own.

To get here, the spectrum that has already been sold will have to be returned to the rightful owners (us), and that will be expensive!!! The government could claim eminant domain, but that would probably be even less popular, and the lawsuits would probably cost even more money. We need to stop selling spectrum NOW!

Re:Selling spectrum is short sighted idea (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599833)

The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.
That would be too logical. Sure would be nice though.

I'll say this, I'm disgusted with everything about the US cellphone market. From its backwardness in technology to vendor lock in and thoroughly crappy service. Recent phones are almost caught up to where Japanese domestic cellphones were four years ago and my Cingular sim works better in my wife's phone (a Nokia purchased in a random store in Manila) than on the phone I purchased when I started the account (I've only paid one of the two fines needed to "unlock" it).

Me (in four[*] phone calls to T-Mobile customer service prior to an international flight): I'll be able to use my phone overseas, right? That's why I bought T-Mobile in the first place.
T-Mobile Customer Rep: Yes, sir.
  after returning
Me: Why didn't my phone work overseas?
T-Mobile Customer Rep: That's because you needed to call us and have your account enabled for international roaming ... and I see that you did that before you left. Sorry.

[*] It took four phone calls because I was trying to have the handset unlocked at the same time, only to learn hours before my flight that it wasn't supported on that specific model subversion. Sigh.

Digging their own grave (1)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599411)

Verizon is just inviting a decision like the Carterfone decision of 1968. It would be ironic if such a decision were made, and applied to the entire spectrum. Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off without the breakup of the old AT&T. At least the old AT&T had some glimmer of a conscience, Verizon and the new AT&T show no signs of one whatsoever.

Re:Digging their own grave (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#20602025)

One of the motivations in the AT&T break up -- which seems ludicrous in retrospect -- is that competitors would bring innovative products to market. Instead, the competitors drove the price of long distance service to unheard of cheapness. This in itself is good, but it doesn't leave margin or attention span for technological innovation.

By in large the US telecommunications market is not very innovative. US telecom services are like US food: cheap, plentiful, but not very good.

Boycott (2, Interesting)

ayounge (906996) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599585)

Can anybody say boycott?!

Re:Boycott (1)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#20599911)

I wish I could boycott Verizon because of this, but I was already boycotting them because of their patent-troll lawsuit against Vonage. Vonage has saved me hundreds of dollars in phone bills over the past few years and it pisses me off that a company like Verizon comes along and sues them for something so obvious as phone-number-to-IP-address conversions instead of competing with them in the marketplace.

I recently renewed my Cingular/AT&T contract with the AT&T 8525 which I'm very happy with... I checked out AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile before buying, but Verizon, I'll never buy anything from you. Can you hear me now?

Rules (1)

spektre1 (901164) | more than 6 years ago | (#20600261)

I personally appreciate the rules, and most netizens seem to love the idea of open standards, open devices, etcetera, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't the government's place to make rules like this. It's odd enough that they need to control the airwaves, but since we gave up our freedom in exchange for less anarchy in the system, I suppose they get to make up the rules. It'll be interesting to see how the court rules on this.

classic clueless libertarian (1)

Nanite (220404) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603011)

I personally appreciate the rules, and most netizens seem to love the idea of open standards, open devices, etcetera, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't the government's place to make rules like this.

You're quite wrong. If the government (ie the people) doesn't make those rules, the corporations sure wont. So where will these regulations come from? What will keep those telephone companies from only allowing us to use one phone, rented from them (as they use to do in the old days?) What will keep those food companies from feeding us poison?

You're wrong in thinking it's not the governments place to regulate safety and fairness. History has shown time and time again that money making enterprises cannot be trusted to regulate themselves in any way. Teddy Roosevelt knew this, but libertarians now a days just turn a blind eye to to that particular statesman.

Damnit!, It's not about "Consumers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20601693)

Who on earth thought it was a good idea to buttonhole the entire US population as 'Consumers' ?

How about Citizens?

I mean, even Taxpayers is a better monikor than Consumer.

This memeshift is obviously intentional, and I wish 'they' would knock it off.

Verizon sues FCC over Open Access Rules (1)

Knickname (1156717) | more than 6 years ago | (#20601875)

Once again we see the wisdom of market rule. In most other countries, mind you, cell customers don't even get charged for incoming calls!!!

A modest proposal:

What if there was an "X-prize" in the mould of the private competition to spur on space travel, to push an open source CITIZENS-BAND SATELLITE into earth orbit? Now my guess is that with lobbyists and all, such a thing could never get off the launchpad in this country. So maybe Larry Ellison or Google (or some other ambitious visionary bunch) in collaboration with a small third or fourth world nation seeking to establish its space presence (not knowing anything about the international regulations that may possibly have sway on such things) could sponsor such a competition. The goal of this would be to place a communications satellite in earth orbit that would begin to provide free access to anyone and everyone. Just what piece of the airwaves you could dedicate to this I don't know. Its a half-baked modest proposal at best. But how about some real competition for the telecom giants? Whatever happened to the Irridium project?

you're more one-sided than fox news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20602605)

"In most other countries, mind you, cell customers don't even get charged for incoming calls!!!"

Quite true -- in most other countries land-line customers get charged to call cell customers.

Market regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20602157)

Somehow complaining about Verizon's tactics seems out of place considering that the US way of doing things has always been to let market solve it's own problems. Is somebody finally realizing that the european way of regulating market isn't all that bad all the time?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...