I find when he is not commenting on an issue of his own you take it with a grain of salt.
When there are posted links that externally back up what he posts on his site it becomes more believeable.
As with the AT&T story the fee was brought to his attention from the carriers customers.
I basically think that you would be correct that the cost of service would rise in leiu of the fees but again it gives customers a valid right to leave if they don't agree to the fees or price increase.
As I posted a few days ago, contracts are value for value. Not a one sided contract if that was the case in my former position contract vendors would try and gouge anyway they could. However our contracts in government were strict to language as to terms and conditions and penalty or added costs via approval.
A contract is for both parties to abide by. Corporate America or not, it is not the way business is done. Just look at how many companies are being indicted in this country.
What's even stranger to me is why the anti-Verizon people hang out on this forum.
You know you can like the service of Verizon, but still not like the antics of said company.
And I noticed on my online billing the lower cost.
There was a bill notation stating the Adminstrative Charge imposed by Verizon was not a mandated fee or tax or surcharge by any governmental agency. You know I just glanced over it and it just seemed that honesty was ok with me.
However in dealings with Verizon I have had whole fees removed when I explained the government is fully tax exempt. And that was every tax or surcharge. And our contracts are in writing and good for 5 years or more.
Mulit-carrier contracts and we never had really bad issues with any of them. Of course when you don't call the contract contact person you will have a reply of "we have many contracts,which government agency are you" but the account executive was great.
jimfitzgerald wrote:
What's even stranger to me is why the anti-Verizon people hang out on this forum.
Probably to keep all the fan boys to noise ratio down. but that would be my guess.
Elector wrote:
I find when he is not commenting on an issue of his own you take it with a grain of salt.
When there are posted links that externally back up what he posts on his site it becomes more believeable.
As with the AT&T story the fee was brought to his attention from the carriers customers.
Doesn't matter what he is doing is annoying and wrong and not news as he tries to claim
This is a REAL news headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee'
DSLReports headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee' Yet Another Sleazy Below-The-Line Fee to Jack Up Service Price
That is no longer news to me. That is an OPINION. I might even agree with said OPINION, but it is still an OPINION not news.
Brian68 wrote:
Elector wrote:
I find when he is not commenting on an issue of his own you take it with a grain of salt.
When there are posted links that externally back up what he posts on his site it becomes more believeable.
As with the AT&T story the fee was brought to his attention from the carriers customers.
Doesn't matter what he is doing is annoying and wrong and not news as he tries to claim
This is a REAL news headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee'
DSLReports headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee' Yet Another Sleazy Below-The-Line Fee to Jack Up Service Price
That is no longer news to me. That is an OPINION. I might even agree with said OPINION, but it is still an OPINION not news.
However no matter the comment after the real headline, the article is legit and the content of said article is correct. Poetic license at work with Karl.
News stations and newspaper companies do this all the time.
Elector wrote:
Brian68 wrote:
Elector wrote:
I find when he is not commenting on an issue of his own you take it with a grain of salt.
When there are posted links that externally back up what he posts on his site it becomes more believeable.
As with the AT&T story the fee was brought to his attention from the carriers customers.
Doesn't matter what he is doing is annoying and wrong and not news as he tries to claim
This is a REAL news headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee'
DSLReports headline
AT&T Imposes New 'Mobility Administrative Fee' Yet Another Sleazy Below-The-Line Fee to Jack Up Service Price
That is no longer news to me. That is an OPINION. I might even agree with said OPINION, but it is still an OPINION not news.
However no matter the comment after the real headline, the article is legit and the content of said article is correct. Poetic license at work with Karl.
News stations and newspaper companies do this all the time.
Poetic license is not news. I guess the same type of people like Faux News so they can have their opinions spoon fed to them. Hey why bother with critical thinking when someone can tell you what you are supposed to think. Apparently the public is too stupid to think for themselves and needs to be educated. Whatever.
But of course we as the public have this Fake news embellishment done to us all the time. my own local paper plays up the stories and the tv news is more guilty than the newspaper. I have noticed the newspaper takes a tv story and spins it to sound spectacular .
Karl is no different than they both are. go figure.
This is a very silly thread. Basically I agree with Jim's comments. I have been with Verizon Wireless -- as well as its predecessor Bell Atlantic Mobil -- since 1999 and have generally been happy with prices, support, and phone service. I even convinced my wife to come over a couple of years ago from AT&T Wireless. Only complaint is that in our house the signal is pretty weak despite being in a residential area in the heart of a small city. Everywhere else (almost) is a good signal including the rural boonies in western Illinois where we periodically go.
Much of the time with V.W. has been off contract while trying to find a good excuse to give up my good old LG VX6100 which I finally did 2 years ago when I got an LG Octane. The monthly price just kept going along without being raised.
Are people aware that the company is properly called Verizon Wireless? It is partly owned by Verizon Communications which is a phone company providing general phone service as well as phone, TV, or Internet via fiber optic. Maybe calling it Verizon in this forum is a matter of laziness or simplicity.
Bernie
Elector wrote:
jimfitzgerald wrote:
What's even stranger to me is why the anti-Verizon people hang out on this forum.
Probably to keep all the fan boys to noise ratio down. but that would be my guess.
Why would they care? I don't like Apple you don't see me on their boards all day trying to "balance" the ratios of fanboys to haters. Seems borderline psycho to do that honestly.
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
