Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A dirty deed by a commission "only" sales agent. At least ..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 11:19:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

While traveling, I met a nice person who had a new Nokia 3585i, and
commented that he had paid $110 for it with his contract renewal? Well,
this begged a call to customer service just for "grins". He also told me
that he wanted this phone because it was plain, and he just wanted to make
calls, no flash features, no internet, just make calls.

SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has just signed
up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail; and a text
messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus dollars or
commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that the customer
wants or needs, right?

Yes, he went to an agent location where the person was paid on commission
only and they "stuffed" his plan with extra everything. The person was told
he had gone over his minutes (he hadn't) and doubled his plan size. (Okay,
the customer is not all that "phone smart", and too trusting)

A Verizon CS Supervisor was brought in to my call; an investigation
requested on the tactics used by the person who did the upgrade; converted
to a proper 2 yr plan, and his current bill of $169 reduced to a credit
of -$10 as a way of an apology for the tactics he was victim of.

We think everyone is entitled to some help when something is obviously
wrong. The customer is now a happy vzw customer getting MORE of what he
actually wants/needs and for less :-)

<state, city, agent' name have been withheld from this true story. But it
was not Illinois, our home base>

NOTE: In the end, the customer is responsible for what they buy or sign for.
I have to believe this is a "rare" occurrence, and if it encourages just one
person to double check what they sign up for, then it was worth the post.

dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.

If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
you.
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 5:54:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"dr.wireMORE"

<snip>
| I have to believe this is a "rare" occurrence, and if it encourages just
one
| person to double check what they sign up for, then it was worth the post.

Not so rare as you may think. I'm in a constant battle with VZN (and other
wireless providers to a lesser extent) on behalf of my consulting clients on
these very issues and the problems are NOT limited to the contract agents.
VZN direct employees are just, if not more, guilty of the abuse.
Anonymous
July 27, 2004 6:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Rare on Verizon's part? Hell no. They'll take every chance they can get to
screw some one out of more money anytime, anywhere. If the victim maybe read
some of my posts prior to all this, then he would have been prepared for the
cruel real world of these scum.

"dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:o lnNc.43626$eH1.20343539@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> While traveling, I met a nice person who had a new Nokia 3585i, and
> commented that he had paid $110 for it with his contract renewal? Well,
> this begged a call to customer service just for "grins". He also told me
> that he wanted this phone because it was plain, and he just wanted to make
> calls, no flash features, no internet, just make calls.
>
> SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has just
signed
> up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail; and a text
> messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus dollars or
> commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that the
customer
> wants or needs, right?
>
> Yes, he went to an agent location where the person was paid on commission
> only and they "stuffed" his plan with extra everything. The person was
told
> he had gone over his minutes (he hadn't) and doubled his plan size.
(Okay,
> the customer is not all that "phone smart", and too trusting)
>
> A Verizon CS Supervisor was brought in to my call; an investigation
> requested on the tactics used by the person who did the upgrade; converted
> to a proper 2 yr plan, and his current bill of $169 reduced to a credit
> of -$10 as a way of an apology for the tactics he was victim of.
>
> We think everyone is entitled to some help when something is obviously
> wrong. The customer is now a happy vzw customer getting MORE of what he
> actually wants/needs and for less :-)
>
> <state, city, agent' name have been withheld from this true story. But it
> was not Illinois, our home base>
>
> NOTE: In the end, the customer is responsible for what they buy or sign
for.
> I have to believe this is a "rare" occurrence, and if it encourages just
one
> person to double check what they sign up for, then it was worth the post.
>
> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>
> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
> you.
>
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2004 1:37:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:54:28 -0400, "Not Me" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Not so rare as you may think. I'm in a constant battle with VZN (and other
>wireless providers to a lesser extent) on behalf of my consulting clients on
>these very issues and the problems are NOT limited to the contract agents.
>VZN direct employees are just, if not more, guilty of the abuse.

After working 5 years in a corporate wireless indirect sotre, I was
laid off, but picked up by a retail indirect store. After 3 months, I
realized I was not a fit for indirect / retail. I was not willing to
sell my soul to Satan, nor was I willing to lie to a customer. After
my first week, my sales weren't all that good. Boss asks me why. "We
don't have a lot of the phones customers ask for." I was told that if
the customer asks for a Model A, which we don't have, but we have a
Model B (similar in features, but different make & model), that the
answer isn't "Sorry, we don't stock Model A, but I do have a model b."
NO NO NO. The answer is "Oh.. No, we don't have the model a. too many
upset customers. Bad phone, bad design, breaks too easily. We DO have
a model B however."

No thanks, not for me.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 6:22:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

PC, yes mistakes happen, so for those that get mistakes on their contracts,
sorry. Of course if you read it, and the feature isn't on the contract,
then someone had to take "action" after the fact to put it on. That
wouldn't be an accident, now would it. dr.

(and the contracts/features are easy to read... yes for some)

Editorial:
However: at some locations (not ours) sales people are "measured" and there
"quota" demands that you sell an "average" of 2-3 accessories per contract
or upgrade. Don't do it, don't meet expectations, short employee life. The
same are data features. Some stores and employees are measured (some
required) to sell 1 data package per contract/upgrade. If your pay and
employee status depends on signing up a feature... then what type of
behavior would you expect from them.

Imagine if in addition to having it be part of your quota, the employee gets
a bonus for each data package signed up, even if the customer cancels the
next day. Imagine another form of commission (bonus) requires the customer
to keep the data for x days, and if they don't, then the commission is
reversed (fair enough).

In My Opinion: (And I still think Verizon Wireless is the best of the lot)
Bad: Try it, pay for it, and if you don't like it, cancel it. As this
requires the customer to take action to remove something they didn't want in
the first place. And they have to pay for it to try it. Or call CS and ask
for a credit. Too much burden put on the customer. Especially if they have
to "discover" a feature like the previous poster discovered.

Good: Try it for free for 30 days, and if you don't like it, cancel it.
Better, but still requires the customer to take action to remove something
they didn't want in the first place. Like perhaps free roadside assistance
for 30 days, then it is $x per month.

PERFECT: Try it for free for 30 days on "us." The feature will
automatically "stop" at that time. If you want to keep the promotion, then
please call me or dial xyz. Don't use it, do nothing and it will go away.
Use it, and it will only take 1 minute to make it a regular part of your
plan. Although the customer does have to call to get the feature to
stick... but this will not be an accident. Although this could also have a
downside if you are counting on a feature (like roadside assistance) and it
went off... but it would be worth a call to customer service to not ask for
a credit, but to reinstate and accept the charge for the services "expected"

the dr.

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3W_Nc.11696$mg6.6160@fed1read02...
>
> "peter_may_day" <my_name@yahoounderwear.com> wrote in message
> news:u7TNc.44634$8_6.524@attbi_s04...
<snip>Fairy magic? It wasn't on the contract I
> | signed at the store. I was warned before hand, so I double checked the
> | contract, and explictly asked the sales guy to read back what was in my
> | contract.
<snip> |

> This is called a "mistake" - it's not a "cultural problem". In point of
> fact, it's a very, very rare occurrence. Those of you who are so paranoid
> about trifles really are wasting much of your own time. In this case,
merely
> dial 611, explain the situation, take the refund they offer you and be
> happy....
..> | --
> | "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
> | news:o lnNc.43626$eH1.20343539@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
> | > SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has just
> | signed
> | > up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail; and a
text
> | > messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus dollars
or
> | > commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that the
> | customer
> | > wants or needs, right?

> | > dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> | > Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> | > Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> | > computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
> | >
> | > If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
> contact you.
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 6:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Please! You beating this trifle to death! You are swatting a fly with a five
inch gun.....all commission salespeople "try" to sell features....this isn't
NEWS! It's YOUR responsibility to know what you buy.....

These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and everyone
else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......

Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
QUESTION!

As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone else
get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can get
an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call. You can get easy,
cheerful support by merely making a phone call. It's up to YOU to know what
you want and what you are buying - take personal responsibility instead of
flailing away at Verizon employees......

Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are "protecting"
buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....

PC

"dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:EK7Oc.920$Z56.162@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| PC, yes mistakes happen, so for those that get mistakes on their
contracts,
| sorry. Of course if you read it, and the feature isn't on the contract,
| then someone had to take "action" after the fact to put it on. That
| wouldn't be an accident, now would it. dr.
|
| (and the contracts/features are easy to read... yes for some)
|
| Editorial:
| However: at some locations (not ours) sales people are "measured" and
there
| "quota" demands that you sell an "average" of 2-3 accessories per contract
| or upgrade. Don't do it, don't meet expectations, short employee life.
The
| same are data features. Some stores and employees are measured (some
| required) to sell 1 data package per contract/upgrade. If your pay and
| employee status depends on signing up a feature... then what type of
| behavior would you expect from them.
|
| Imagine if in addition to having it be part of your quota, the employee
gets
| a bonus for each data package signed up, even if the customer cancels the
| next day. Imagine another form of commission (bonus) requires the
customer
| to keep the data for x days, and if they don't, then the commission is
| reversed (fair enough).
|
| In My Opinion: (And I still think Verizon Wireless is the best of the lot)
| Bad: Try it, pay for it, and if you don't like it, cancel it. As this
| requires the customer to take action to remove something they didn't want
in
| the first place. And they have to pay for it to try it. Or call CS and
ask
| for a credit. Too much burden put on the customer. Especially if they
have
| to "discover" a feature like the previous poster discovered.
|
| Good: Try it for free for 30 days, and if you don't like it, cancel it.
| Better, but still requires the customer to take action to remove something
| they didn't want in the first place. Like perhaps free roadside
assistance
| for 30 days, then it is $x per month.
|
| PERFECT: Try it for free for 30 days on "us." The feature will
| automatically "stop" at that time. If you want to keep the promotion,
then
| please call me or dial xyz. Don't use it, do nothing and it will go away.
| Use it, and it will only take 1 minute to make it a regular part of your
| plan. Although the customer does have to call to get the feature to
| stick... but this will not be an accident. Although this could also have
a
| downside if you are counting on a feature (like roadside assistance) and
it
| went off... but it would be worth a call to customer service to not ask
for
| a credit, but to reinstate and accept the charge for the services
"expected"
|
| the dr.
|
| "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
| news:3W_Nc.11696$mg6.6160@fed1read02...
| >
| > "peter_may_day" <my_name@yahoounderwear.com> wrote in message
| > news:u7TNc.44634$8_6.524@attbi_s04...
| <snip>Fairy magic? It wasn't on the contract I
| > | signed at the store. I was warned before hand, so I double checked the
| > | contract, and explictly asked the sales guy to read back what was in
my
| > | contract.
| <snip> |
|
| > This is called a "mistake" - it's not a "cultural problem". In point of
| > fact, it's a very, very rare occurrence. Those of you who are so
paranoid
| > about trifles really are wasting much of your own time. In this case,
| merely
| > dial 611, explain the situation, take the refund they offer you and be
| > happy....
| .> | --
| > | "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
| > | news:o lnNc.43626$eH1.20343539@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
| <snip>
| > | > SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has
just
| > | signed
| > | > up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail; and a
| text
| > | > messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus
dollars
| or
| > | > commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that the
| > | customer
| > | > wants or needs, right?
|
| > | > dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
| > | > Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
| > | > Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
| > | > computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
| > | >
| > | > If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
| > contact you.
|
|
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 6:22:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and everyone
> else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
> and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
> service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
> resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......

However, they are not perfect, they DO have some customer unfriendly
policies, and just like all the other carriers, they have some employees
and indirect sales agents that are very unscrupulous.

> Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
> QUESTION!

Sometimes it's not a question of understanding the contract. Often it is,
but not every time.

> As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone else
> get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can get
> an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call.

Sometimes.

Did you read my thread "Goodbye, Verizon"? The reasons I stopped using
VZW had nothing to do with the contract and everything to do with VZW not
doing what they said they'd do. It's not exactly black and white.

> Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are "protecting"
> buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....

Dude, get a jumbo-sized clue. There are plenty of cellular sales people
that are either unethical, really stupid, or both. And yes, some of them ARE
employed by Verizon and their resellers. VZW as a company, duplicitous? Well,
I'd definitely say "greedy" in some cases. And as mentioned before, they do
have some policies that are customer-unfriendly. They aren't horrible. VZW
served me well for 3 1/2 years before they decided to start ignoring the
network issues that suddenly popped up in areas that used to work fine. But
they are far from perfect.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 29, 2004 8:07:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:boidnQdiCLJes5TcRVn-pA@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
|
| > These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and
everyone
| > else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the
largest
| > and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing
BETTER
| > service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
| > resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......
|
| However, they are not perfect, they DO have some customer unfriendly
| policies, and just like all the other carriers, they have some employees
| and indirect sales agents that are very unscrupulous.

Isolated incidents do not make a "culture" - and the emphasis found herein
and the endless time wasted on trifles remains tedious....and gets more
tedious with every long-winded anti-Verizon message.....

| > Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
| > QUESTION!
|
| Sometimes it's not a question of understanding the contract. Often it is,
| but not every time.

In re the OP, is was/is a question of understanding the contract and also of
applying common sense....

| > As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone
else
| > get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can
get
| > an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call.
|
| Sometimes.

In my experience, ALWAYS.....

| Did you read my thread "Goodbye, Verizon"? The reasons I stopped using
| VZW had nothing to do with the contract and everything to do with VZW not
| doing what they said they'd do. It's not exactly black and white.

I did - especially since you were once a Verizon champion....

I've driven through the area you live in now and find coverage to be just
fine. When/if you go "off the beaten path" and out into the desert where
there are no people, I wouldn't expect to find much coverage, though....

But, again, in the case of the OP, it's absolutely black and white - he is a
living example of the truism that most wounds in life are
self-inflicted.....

| > Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are
"protecting"
| > buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....
|
| Dude, get a jumbo-sized clue.

Dude, take the smarmy remarks and put 'em where the sun don't shine.....:) 

|There are plenty of cellular sales people
| that are either unethical, really stupid, or both. And yes, some of them
ARE
| employed by Verizon and their resellers. VZW as a company, duplicitous?
Well,
| I'd definitely say "greedy" in some cases. And as mentioned before, they
do
| have some policies that are customer-unfriendly. They aren't horrible. VZW
| served me well for 3 1/2 years before they decided to start ignoring the
| network issues that suddenly popped up in areas that used to work fine.
But
| they are far from perfect.

I don't buy it - stupid people can be found working anywhere - it doesn't
segue to duplicity or greed on the part of the company. That's just modern,
politically correct paranoia.....! Mistakes get made. Mistakes can be and
ARE corrected. Verizon has no policy that I'm aware of that is
customer-unfriendly. And, indeed, they aren't horrible - they aren't even
mildly bad....!

You are entitled to switch services for reasons that make sense to you.
Personally, I don't see those issues that you complained about in the same
light. I doubt they "ignored" issues - seems more likely they weren't
anxious to put a lot of money into expanding service into an area where
there were few or no customers....that's a business decision that you can
certainly disagree with, but it's not duplicitous, horrible, evil or even
customer-unfriendly.....!

PC
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 12:01:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
>
>
> .....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
> and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
> service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
> resolve problems. ......
>
>
> PC
>
Well, not exactly...
Verizon got to be the largest carrier by combining a bunch of smaller carriers.
---JRC---
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 12:01:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
news:HIcOc.81744$fv.11894@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
>
>
> .....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
> and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
> service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
> resolve problems. ......
>
>
> PC
>
Well, not exactly...
Verizon got to be the largest carrier by combining a bunch of smaller
carriers.

Well, yes, EXACTLY....

Their "combination" provides BETTER service, BETTER coverage and SANE
procedures that permit customers to resolve problems....

PC
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 12:59:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> Isolated incidents do not make a "culture"

But your replies suggest that there are *no* problems.

> I've driven through the area you live in now and find coverage to be just
> fine.

Coverage, for the most part, IS solid throughout the area. I understand that
VZW has the contract for the CalTrans call boxes, and I live just a few minutes
north of a state highway, so I expect to be able to make calls throughout the
local area. My problem was with places where my phone used to work where it
does not now, compounded by the fact that VZW simply closed my trouble tickets
and said nothing to me.

> When/if you go "off the beaten path" and out into the desert where
> there are no people, I wouldn't expect to find much coverage, though....

Coverage at my house is one thing. I'm on the northeast edge of Apple Valley.
Coverage at the Von's shopping center in Victorville, at one of the busiest
intersections in the area, is another thing, and that's where I had most of
my problems. The dropped calls started at the beginning of this year and did
not get any better through months of continued complaints to Verizon.

Victorville isn't off the beaten path. Not the part of Victorville where
I was having major trouble holding and completing calls. There are at least
a half-dozen exits off Interstate 15 in Victorville. :) 

> I don't buy it - stupid people can be found working anywhere - it doesn't
> segue to duplicity or greed on the part of the company. That's just modern,
> politically correct paranoia.....! Mistakes get made. Mistakes can be and
> ARE corrected. Verizon has no policy that I'm aware of that is
> customer-unfriendly. And, indeed, they aren't horrible - they aren't even
> mildly bad....!

Ok, how about this: At the beginning of a bill cycle, I dropped my plan from
$59.95/month America's Choice to the $15/month emergency plan, and was told
the credit wouldn't be issued for thirty days and I'd still be on the hook
for $59.95+taxes+fees even though I'd actually be on the $15 plan. That's
right, I'd have been on a $15 plan and paying $59.95 even though I was only
getting 25 minutes. That's not customer-friendly. OK, I can understand the
credit not being issued immediately, it makes sense to post it when the
next bill comes through. But on my $15 plan I would have owed $60 for the
month, and been disconnected had I not paid the $60, and for my $60 I would
have gotten 25 minutes, not the 800 that $60 used to get me. This is
customer-friendly?

> You are entitled to switch services for reasons that make sense to you.
> Personally, I don't see those issues that you complained about in the same
> light. I doubt they "ignored" issues - seems more likely they weren't
> anxious to put a lot of money into expanding service into an area where
> there were few or no customers

Be irritated with me for telling you to get a clue, but I'm going to do it
again. Get a jumbo-sized clue. "few or no customers," my ass. Do you know
anything about the Victor Valley? There are at least a quarter of a million
people living in the immediate area. No, it's *not* Los Angeles. It's not
some backwater hick town, either. Drive the 15 up to Las Vegas and you'll
drive through Baker - *there's* a town with almost no population. This area,
however, is big enough that Cingular and Verizon Wireless have corporate
stores in the area, and Sprint is opening one up near the mall sometime
towards the end of the year. (All of the other carriers are represented by
authorized agents, but they ARE all here.)

As mentioned, the problems I had were at the Von's shopping center right
in front of the Verizon Wireless store, and you'd think they'd have some
incentive to fix them. This isn't a case of coverage not existing, it's
a case of things breaking and not being fixed in an area where the carrier
has had coverage for some time.

Perhaps you should go back and read that thread again.

> certainly disagree with, but it's not duplicitous, horrible, evil or even
> customer-unfriendly.....!

Failure to fix brokenness sure isn't customer-friendly.

If you would like to spin this to somehow portray it as the customer's
fault, go ahead; I'd like to hear it. Personally, even in the thread
I referred to previously, I think I did a decent job of being objective.
You, however, aren't.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 1:04:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> Their "combination" provides BETTER service, BETTER coverage and SANE
> procedures that permit customers to resolve problems....

So what happens when said procedures fail?

I'll readily admit that with the problems I had, Verizon reps were willing
to offer service (or lack-of-service) credits. That's great, and don't think
for a minute that I didn't appreciate the credits that I was offerred. And I
firmly believe that MOST CSR's, managers, and sales reps at VZW *are*
interested in the Worry-Free Guarantee concept. However, there ARE times
when, despite what they say, your problem NEVER becomes their problem.

I outlined what I thought was the issue in my Goodbye thread. VZW seems to
care a lot less about cities that have a fairly decent population but have
much larger cities nearby. And according to my theory, sometimes the
smaller cities in a given market have problems that get ignored even though
said cities may have populations numbering in the thousands or tens of
thousands. I wish I had some proof, but I have neither the time nor the
resources to conduct an independent study of Verizon Wireless customers in
smaller cities...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 3:32:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:-JednckJZq4sMZTcRVn-tw@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
| > Their "combination" provides BETTER service, BETTER coverage and SANE
| > procedures that permit customers to resolve problems....
|
| So what happens when said procedures fail?

I'm not sure anything "failed", but rather that no agreement was
reached...for reasons I have no knowledge of...

| I'll readily admit that with the problems I had, Verizon reps were willing
| to offer service (or lack-of-service) credits. That's great, and don't
think
| for a minute that I didn't appreciate the credits that I was offerred. And
I
| firmly believe that MOST CSR's, managers, and sales reps at VZW *are*
| interested in the Worry-Free Guarantee concept. However, there ARE times
| when, despite what they say, your problem NEVER becomes their problem.

Sometimes "your problem" is "your problem"....

There is, as I've often said, room for disagreement - and room for
negotiation. The company is not always wrong. The customer is not always
right. Sometimes, no one is to blame.

All I've maintained is the tone and nature of the anti-Verizon rhetoric has
become tedious in the extremem. This forum has become little more than a
venue where folks bitch endlessly about whatever Verizon won't do for them
at this moment in time and how Verizon needs to reorganize the company to
suit this or that person's usually silly notions....

When/if you can't resolve your "problem" or differences, then you have other
choices - which seems to be the course you chose based on what you've
reported. I find no fault in that - neither with you for making your choice
nor with Verizon for having made their business decision. I would certainly
agree that it would have been better had a solution satisfactory to both
parties been found. Apparently, that didn't happen - again, NOT a matter to
justify whacking Verizon. Let me make it clear that I don't consider
anything you've said as "whacking" Verizon - but you are defending others
who have, which seems a tad odd to me....but it's your right and priviledge
to do so if you're so inclined....!

| I outlined what I thought was the issue in my Goodbye thread. VZW seems to
| care a lot less about cities that have a fairly decent population but have
| much larger cities nearby. And according to my theory, sometimes the
| smaller cities in a given market have problems that get ignored even
though
| said cities may have populations numbering in the thousands or tens of
| thousands. I wish I had some proof, but I have neither the time nor the
| resources to conduct an independent study of Verizon Wireless customers in
| smaller cities...

You might be right - but I'm persuaded it has more to do with revenue
generated by towers. If'n there ain't enough folks around to raise revenue
from the tower, they probably won't put it in.....a simple business
decision....!

PC
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 3:49:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:NpOdnb4rj4X4NpTcRVn-qg@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
|
| > Isolated incidents do not make a "culture"
|
| But your replies suggest that there are *no* problems.

No, I've suggested that what is usually beaten to death in this venue is a
trifle easily solved - usually with a phone call. All the peripheral whining
and handwringing is simply a waste of time and bandwidth....

| > I've driven through the area you live in now and find coverage to be
just
| > fine.
|
| Coverage, for the most part, IS solid throughout the area. I understand
that
| VZW has the contract for the CalTrans call boxes, and I live just a few
minutes
| north of a state highway, so I expect to be able to make calls throughout
the
| local area. My problem was with places where my phone used to work where
it
| does not now, compounded by the fact that VZW simply closed my trouble
tickets
| and said nothing to me.

We've covered this ground before - it appears that there was no solution
that was satisfactory to both parties. I maintain that Verizon's decision
was most likely a business decision, not the result of duplicity or "not
caring"...

| > When/if you go "off the beaten path" and out into the desert where
| > there are no people, I wouldn't expect to find much coverage, though....
|
| Coverage at my house is one thing. I'm on the northeast edge of Apple
Valley.
| Coverage at the Von's shopping center in Victorville, at one of the
busiest
| intersections in the area, is another thing, and that's where I had most
of
| my problems. The dropped calls started at the beginning of this year and
did
| not get any better through months of continued complaints to Verizon.
|
| Victorville isn't off the beaten path. Not the part of Victorville where
| I was having major trouble holding and completing calls. There are at
least
| a half-dozen exits off Interstate 15 in Victorville. :) 

I don't live in that area, but I do drive through it about once every six
weeks or so. I've never had a problem in Victorville so I can't add much to
your reports. Since it's a place I "stop" on the way to Vegas, I usually
make a few calls there - works fine for me. I'm sorry you had problems, but
somehow I don't think the problem was due to Verizon's indifference of
unwillingness to find solutions. I've always found them to be very, very
good in those areas...

What you have here is a disagreement. I respect your point of view, but I
don't share it......

| > I don't buy it - stupid people can be found working anywhere - it
doesn't
| > segue to duplicity or greed on the part of the company. That's just
modern,
| > politically correct paranoia.....! Mistakes get made. Mistakes can be
and
| > ARE corrected. Verizon has no policy that I'm aware of that is
| > customer-unfriendly. And, indeed, they aren't horrible - they aren't
even
| > mildly bad....!
|
| Ok, how about this: At the beginning of a bill cycle, I dropped my plan
from
| $59.95/month America's Choice to the $15/month emergency plan, and was
told
| the credit wouldn't be issued for thirty days and I'd still be on the hook
| for $59.95+taxes+fees even though I'd actually be on the $15 plan. That's
| right, I'd have been on a $15 plan and paying $59.95 even though I was
only
| getting 25 minutes. That's not customer-friendly. OK, I can understand the
| credit not being issued immediately, it makes sense to post it when the
| next bill comes through. But on my $15 plan I would have owed $60 for the
| month, and been disconnected had I not paid the $60, and for my $60 I
would
| have gotten 25 minutes, not the 800 that $60 used to get me. This is
| customer-friendly?

Assuming that things are exactly as you report above, it's a MISTAKE! Dial
611, explain it and it will be fixed. I've done that more than a few times -
and all over the country.

| > You are entitled to switch services for reasons that make sense to you.
| > Personally, I don't see those issues that you complained about in the
same
| > light. I doubt they "ignored" issues - seems more likely they weren't
| > anxious to put a lot of money into expanding service into an area where
| > there were few or no customers
|
| Be irritated with me for telling you to get a clue, but I'm going to do it
| again. Get a jumbo-sized clue. "few or no customers," my ass. Do you know
| anything about the Victor Valley? There are at least a quarter of a
million
| people living in the immediate area. No, it's *not* Los Angeles. It's not
| some backwater hick town, either. Drive the 15 up to Las Vegas and you'll
| drive through Baker - *there's* a town with almost no population. This
area,
| however, is big enough that Cingular and Verizon Wireless have corporate
| stores in the area, and Sprint is opening one up near the mall sometime
| towards the end of the year. (All of the other carriers are represented by
| authorized agents, but they ARE all here.)

I knew that sooner or later you'd resort to personal invective and/or
name-calling. It's common in this and similar venues when one has lost the
argument or has no case....:) 

As for your I-15 example, you should tell the whole truth - Verizon has full
coverage all the way to Vegas on the I-15. My phone works fine in Baker. My
phone works fine in 29 Palms. There is no place on the I-15 where it doesn't
work....

I've already reported that I have had no trouble in Victorville - but there
is that big, dry area nearby where nobody lives that is called "The Desert".
I submit that "The Desert" does have spotty coverage due to a lack of
customers located there. As long as you stay on the hhighways, your cell
phone works. That's true virtually everywhere in the United States with a
few rare exceptions......

| As mentioned, the problems I had were at the Von's shopping center right
| in front of the Verizon Wireless store, and you'd think they'd have some
| incentive to fix them. This isn't a case of coverage not existing, it's
| a case of things breaking and not being fixed in an area where the carrier
| has had coverage for some time.

<repetitive stuff snipped>

| If you would like to spin this to somehow portray it as the customer's
| fault, go ahead; I'd like to hear it. Personally, even in the thread
| I referred to previously, I think I did a decent job of being objective.
| You, however, aren't.

Oh, come on now, you're way too smart to lower yourself to accusing others
of being "less objective" than you are.....:)  Maybe your are, but then maybe
you aren't. After all, you have an ox to gore in this discussion.....:) 

I never said ANY of it was the customer's fault beyond the pervasive
childish attitude so many display that reminds me of a screaming five year
old who wants another Oreo cookie...! Problems exist. They are usually
easily fixed. Sometimes they aren't. None of that points to duplicity of a
"bad attitude" on the part of Verizon - that WAS, and IS, the point of this
thread. I'm sorry you couldn't get your problem resolved to your
satisfaction - but, I'm sorry to tell you, you can't win 'em all. Sometimes
things just don't work out. That's life, not "duplicity"......

PC
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:29:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Proconsul said:

; These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and everyone
; else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
; and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
; service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
; resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......

Or by starting with a privileged position (being the local telco with
one local competitor) and then merging/buying other wireless providers.

Yes, all salespeople can be lying scum at times and complete angels
other times. My own personal experience on this leaves me firmly
ambivalent.

I started with Cellular One while they were still that name. I
switched to Verizon for one reason and one reason only: CDMA vs TDMA
and at the time I switched, I needed to be able to attach my cellphone
to my notebook's cellular capable modem. And TDMA makes data calls
essentially impossible at any decent speed.

My current handset is a smartphone. I signed on with a NationalAccess
plan to get data and voice out of a single minutes pool, my usage is
probably about 99% voice and 1% data. But when I do use it for data
(check weather.com, movie times, superpages.com, etc) I don't want to
be worrying about kilobyte usage. After I moved and got a Verizon
landline for the first time in four years (Comcast Digital Phone
before) and found that I could bundle my landline and wireless phones
on a single bill and get a discount - if I had an America's Choice plan
- I looked into this "Minutes of use" data rider for AC that people
here keep talking about.

To make a long story short, at least in my market area it does not
work. It does not allow me to use the software I want to use on my
wireless web capable handset. And it took me two months to get the
billing screw up caused by two mid-month plan changes which itself was
a mistake on their part because I specifically said to change to the AC
plan on my billing cycle, not immediately in the middle of the cycle.

I was prepared to bite the bullet of an early termination fee and
replacing a $400 handset less than a year old with a $500 handset on
Cingular if my then-next bill did not complete the billing correction.
I got that bill this week and it did. So I'm staying with Verizon, at
least for now.

Based on what I was told by the Verizon Wireless CSR (call center, not
reseller/retail store) and what I was actually able to do, I was flat
out lied to. It won't take much for me to take my number to another
cellular provider now.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." -
George W. Bush (Washington DC, Oct 27 2003)
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:42:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Steven J Sobol said:

; As mentioned, the problems I had were at the Von's shopping center right
; in front of the Verizon Wireless store, and you'd think they'd have some
; incentive to fix them. This isn't a case of coverage not existing, it's

But I bet reception +inside+ the store is five bars.

Near where my parents live, there is an area roughly one mile square
with horrible reception on Verizon. Smack in the middle is a Verizon
owned Verizon Wireless store. They have their own antenna or amplified
repeater inside the store, but as soon as you step outside reception
drops from five bars to one or two bars.

To be fair, most of the cellular providers have bad service in that
area. It's a relatively posh area and the residents consistently
refuse to allow cellular antennas.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then
I'm for it." George W. Bush, The Presidential Debates. St. Louis, Mo.,
October 18, 2000
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:42:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jeffrey Kaplan <acv@gordol.org> wrote:

> But I bet reception +inside+ the store is five bars.

Probably.

The problem wasn't reception per se, it was dropped calls. They might finally
have fixed it, but I'm past caring.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:42:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <acv@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:e1kjg0142dfkdnpp1evtisf27672f14444@news20.forteinc.com...

| Near where my parents live, there is an area roughly one mile square
| with horrible reception on Verizon. Smack in the middle is a Verizon
| owned Verizon Wireless store. They have their own antenna or amplified
| repeater inside the store, but as soon as you step outside reception
| drops from five bars to one or two bars.
|
| To be fair, most of the cellular providers have bad service in that
| area. It's a relatively posh area and the residents consistently
| refuse to allow cellular antennas.

You've touched on an important point here - for you would find similar
problems in San Diego. The worst place for reception is La Jolla where the
rich folks live. You would expect that they would want the best service,
but, as you indicated, they won't allow any additional cellular towers -
even though the area could be blanketed by towers nobody could see.....:) 

Strange, but true!

PC
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:45:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Proconsul said:

; Well, not exactly...
; Verizon got to be the largest carrier by combining a bunch of smaller
; carriers.
;
; Well, yes, EXACTLY....
;
; Their "combination" provides BETTER service, BETTER coverage and SANE
; procedures that permit customers to resolve problems....

No, it doesn't. They may or may not have those, but they do not follow
from becoming big by buying other market areas. The only thing to
follow from that path of expansion is becoming big by brute force.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"... both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to
announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or
we will." - George W. Bush on Saddam Hussein, Manchester, NH, Oct 5,
2002
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 4:45:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Oh, good! Another conspiracy theory!....:) 

Verizon got "bigger" and "better" by getting "bigger" and "better". One
naturally follows the other - the sinister motives are just silly.....brute
force, as you've used the term, is simply good business pursued aggressively
and successfully.....! That's the American way!.....:) 

PC

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <acv@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:2ekjg0hpru58qbr08nmfh8eime6vdsgp5b@news20.forteinc.com...
| Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Proconsul said:
|
| ; Well, not exactly...
| ; Verizon got to be the largest carrier by combining a bunch of smaller
| ; carriers.
| ;
| ; Well, yes, EXACTLY....
| ;
| ; Their "combination" provides BETTER service, BETTER coverage and SANE
| ; procedures that permit customers to resolve problems....
|
| No, it doesn't. They may or may not have those, but they do not follow
| from becoming big by buying other market areas. The only thing to
| follow from that path of expansion is becoming big by brute force.
|
| --
| Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
| The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol
|
| "... both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to
| announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or
| we will." - George W. Bush on Saddam Hussein, Manchester, NH, Oct 5,
| 2002
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

A short answer to your detailed explanation. 1st thank you for the note, as
it says a lot about you, as it took a fair bit of time to write such a
detailed response. Thanks.

But: 31 attorney generals, representing 31 states (July 21, 2004 settlement)
find that wireless contracts as well as terms of service, fees are difficult
and confusing to the public. But of course, you are proconsul, and are more
comfortable with contracts and legal-eze that others, or for example those
31 states representing the public. For sure you are better at these
contracts then I am.... We need people like you, to help the rest of us,
who are "not so smart"

The dr.

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
> Please! You beating this trifle to death! You are swatting a fly with a
five
> inch gun.....all commission salespeople "try" to sell features....this
isn't
> NEWS! It's YOUR responsibility to know what you buy.....
>
> These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and everyone
> else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
> and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
> service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
> resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......
>
> Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
> QUESTION!
>
> As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone
else
> get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can get
> an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call. You can get easy,
> cheerful support by merely making a phone call. It's up to YOU to know
what
> you want and what you are buying - take personal responsibility instead of
> flailing away at Verizon employees......
>
> Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are
"protecting"
> buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....
>
> PC
>
> "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
> news:EK7Oc.920$Z56.162@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> | PC, yes mistakes happen, so for those that get mistakes on their
> contracts,
> | sorry. Of course if you read it, and the feature isn't on the
contract,
> | then someone had to take "action" after the fact to put it on. That
> | wouldn't be an accident, now would it. dr.
> |
> | (and the contracts/features are easy to read... yes for some)
> |
> | Editorial:
> | However: at some locations (not ours) sales people are "measured" and
> there
> | "quota" demands that you sell an "average" of 2-3 accessories per
contract
> | or upgrade. Don't do it, don't meet expectations, short employee life.
> The
> | same are data features. Some stores and employees are measured (some
> | required) to sell 1 data package per contract/upgrade. If your pay and
> | employee status depends on signing up a feature... then what type of
> | behavior would you expect from them.
> |
> | Imagine if in addition to having it be part of your quota, the employee
> gets
> | a bonus for each data package signed up, even if the customer cancels
the
> | next day. Imagine another form of commission (bonus) requires the
> customer
> | to keep the data for x days, and if they don't, then the commission is
> | reversed (fair enough).
> |
> | In My Opinion: (And I still think Verizon Wireless is the best of the
lot)
> | Bad: Try it, pay for it, and if you don't like it, cancel it. As this
> | requires the customer to take action to remove something they didn't
want
> in
> | the first place. And they have to pay for it to try it. Or call CS and
> ask
> | for a credit. Too much burden put on the customer. Especially if they
> have
> | to "discover" a feature like the previous poster discovered.
> |
> | Good: Try it for free for 30 days, and if you don't like it, cancel it.
> | Better, but still requires the customer to take action to remove
something
> | they didn't want in the first place. Like perhaps free roadside
> assistance
> | for 30 days, then it is $x per month.
> |
> | PERFECT: Try it for free for 30 days on "us." The feature will
> | automatically "stop" at that time. If you want to keep the promotion,
> then
> | please call me or dial xyz. Don't use it, do nothing and it will go
away.
> | Use it, and it will only take 1 minute to make it a regular part of your
> | plan. Although the customer does have to call to get the feature to
> | stick... but this will not be an accident. Although this could also
have
> a
> | downside if you are counting on a feature (like roadside assistance) and
> it
> | went off... but it would be worth a call to customer service to not ask
> for
> | a credit, but to reinstate and accept the charge for the services
> "expected"
> |
> | the dr.
> |
> | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
> | news:3W_Nc.11696$mg6.6160@fed1read02...
> | >
> | > "peter_may_day" <my_name@yahoounderwear.com> wrote in message
> | > news:u7TNc.44634$8_6.524@attbi_s04...
> | <snip>Fairy magic? It wasn't on the contract I
> | > | signed at the store. I was warned before hand, so I double checked
the
> | > | contract, and explictly asked the sales guy to read back what was in
> my
> | > | contract.
> | <snip> |
> |
> | > This is called a "mistake" - it's not a "cultural problem". In point
of
> | > fact, it's a very, very rare occurrence. Those of you who are so
> paranoid
> | > about trifles really are wasting much of your own time. In this case,
> | merely
> | > dial 611, explain the situation, take the refund they offer you and be
> | > happy....
> | .> | --
> | > | "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:o lnNc.43626$eH1.20343539@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> | <snip>
> | > | > SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has
> just
> | > | signed
> | > | > up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail; and
a
> | text
> | > | > messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus
> dollars
> | or
> | > | > commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that
the
> | > | customer
> | > | > wants or needs, right?
> |
> | > | > dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> | > | > Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> | > | > Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> | > | > computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
> | > | >
> | > | > If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
> | > contact you.
> |
> |
>
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:30:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Gee - was there anything I said that you couldn't comprehend?

I'm sorry that you need 31 lawyers to explain a simple cell phone contract
to you....

I found it tedious but understandable - it is written in the English
language.....:)  The "public" uses the "I'm confused" excuse entirely too
often. Even in a time where public education has turned out two generations
of functional illiterates, one should be able to expect that adults learn to
read somewhere along the line...

For the record, "Dr.", I doubt that I'm smarter than you are, but I can read
for comprehension......:) 

PC

"dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:D 9kOc.2247$uC7.2029@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
|A short answer to your detailed explanation. 1st thank you for the note,
as
| it says a lot about you, as it took a fair bit of time to write such a
| detailed response. Thanks.
|
| But: 31 attorney generals, representing 31 states (July 21, 2004
settlement)
| find that wireless contracts as well as terms of service, fees are
difficult
| and confusing to the public. But of course, you are proconsul, and are
more
| comfortable with contracts and legal-eze that others, or for example those
| 31 states representing the public. For sure you are better at these
| contracts then I am.... We need people like you, to help the rest of us,
| who are "not so smart"
|
| The dr.
|
| "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
| news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
| > Please! You beating this trifle to death! You are swatting a fly with a
| five
| > inch gun.....all commission salespeople "try" to sell features....this
| isn't
| > NEWS! It's YOUR responsibility to know what you buy.....
| >
| > These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and
everyone
| > else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the
largest
| > and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing
BETTER
| > service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
| > resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......
| >
| > Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
| > QUESTION!
| >
| > As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone
| else
| > get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can
get
| > an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call. You can get
easy,
| > cheerful support by merely making a phone call. It's up to YOU to know
| what
| > you want and what you are buying - take personal responsibility instead
of
| > flailing away at Verizon employees......
| >
| > Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are
| "protecting"
| > buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....
| >
| > PC
| >
| > "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
| > news:EK7Oc.920$Z56.162@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| > | PC, yes mistakes happen, so for those that get mistakes on their
| > contracts,
| > | sorry. Of course if you read it, and the feature isn't on the
| contract,
| > | then someone had to take "action" after the fact to put it on. That
| > | wouldn't be an accident, now would it. dr.
| > |
| > | (and the contracts/features are easy to read... yes for some)
| > |
| > | Editorial:
| > | However: at some locations (not ours) sales people are "measured" and
| > there
| > | "quota" demands that you sell an "average" of 2-3 accessories per
| contract
| > | or upgrade. Don't do it, don't meet expectations, short employee
life.
| > The
| > | same are data features. Some stores and employees are measured (some
| > | required) to sell 1 data package per contract/upgrade. If your pay
and
| > | employee status depends on signing up a feature... then what type of
| > | behavior would you expect from them.
| > |
| > | Imagine if in addition to having it be part of your quota, the
employee
| > gets
| > | a bonus for each data package signed up, even if the customer cancels
| the
| > | next day. Imagine another form of commission (bonus) requires the
| > customer
| > | to keep the data for x days, and if they don't, then the commission is
| > | reversed (fair enough).
| > |
| > | In My Opinion: (And I still think Verizon Wireless is the best of the
| lot)
| > | Bad: Try it, pay for it, and if you don't like it, cancel it. As this
| > | requires the customer to take action to remove something they didn't
| want
| > in
| > | the first place. And they have to pay for it to try it. Or call CS
and
| > ask
| > | for a credit. Too much burden put on the customer. Especially if
they
| > have
| > | to "discover" a feature like the previous poster discovered.
| > |
| > | Good: Try it for free for 30 days, and if you don't like it, cancel
it.
| > | Better, but still requires the customer to take action to remove
| something
| > | they didn't want in the first place. Like perhaps free roadside
| > assistance
| > | for 30 days, then it is $x per month.
| > |
| > | PERFECT: Try it for free for 30 days on "us." The feature will
| > | automatically "stop" at that time. If you want to keep the promotion,
| > then
| > | please call me or dial xyz. Don't use it, do nothing and it will go
| away.
| > | Use it, and it will only take 1 minute to make it a regular part of
your
| > | plan. Although the customer does have to call to get the feature to
| > | stick... but this will not be an accident. Although this could also
| have
| > a
| > | downside if you are counting on a feature (like roadside assistance)
and
| > it
| > | went off... but it would be worth a call to customer service to not
ask
| > for
| > | a credit, but to reinstate and accept the charge for the services
| > "expected"
| > |
| > | the dr.
| > |
| > | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
| > | news:3W_Nc.11696$mg6.6160@fed1read02...
| > | >
| > | > "peter_may_day" <my_name@yahoounderwear.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:u7TNc.44634$8_6.524@attbi_s04...
| > | <snip>Fairy magic? It wasn't on the contract I
| > | > | signed at the store. I was warned before hand, so I double checked
| the
| > | > | contract, and explictly asked the sales guy to read back what was
in
| > my
| > | > | contract.
| > | <snip> |
| > |
| > | > This is called a "mistake" - it's not a "cultural problem". In point
| of
| > | > fact, it's a very, very rare occurrence. Those of you who are so
| > paranoid
| > | > about trifles really are wasting much of your own time. In this
case,
| > | merely
| > | > dial 611, explain the situation, take the refund they offer you and
be
| > | > happy....
| > | .> | --
| > | > | "dr.wireMORE" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:o lnNc.43626$eH1.20343539@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
| > | <snip>
| > | > | > SURPRISE: A call to customer service shows that this person has
| > just
| > | > | signed
| > | > | > up for a 1 yr agreement, with mobile web; enhanced voicemail;
and
| a
| > | text
| > | > | > messaging package. He had no "clue". Seems people get bonus
| > dollars
| > | or
| > | > | > commissions on selling extras... but they should be extras that
| the
| > | > | customer
| > | > | > wants or needs, right?
| > |
| > | > | > dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
| > | > | > Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
| > | > | > Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
| > | > | > computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try
to
| > | > contact you.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 2:42:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> We've covered this ground before - it appears that there was no solution
> that was satisfactory to both parties.

In that case, if they weren't going to fix coverage areas that used to
work, they should have let me out of my contract since they are refusing to
provide the service that they were providing previously. Just FYI, what
actually happened is that I called in again for about the seventh or eighth
time in six months and found that they'd closed the ticket without telling
me, having found no problems. I would have been happy to let a field engineer
from VZW have my phone for an afternoon - I could have met them down at the
VZW store. I don't think there are any firmware updates for my phone, and it
worked fine in Cleveland before I moved, and it worked fine for a half-year
in Victorville (all over Victorville, with the exception of Route 66 heading
up towards Oro Grande, and there's a spot there that is extremely hilly where
ALL carriers tend to drop calls). My major problem was that they were supposed
to have contacted me to follow up, and they never did.

> Assuming that things are exactly as you report above, it's a MISTAKE! Dial
> 611, explain it and it will be fixed. I've done that more than a few times -
> and all over the country.

I resolved the problem

> I knew that sooner or later you'd resort to personal invective and/or
> name-calling. It's common in this and similar venues when one has lost the
> argument or has no case....:) 

I call 'em as I see 'em. But I guess it's ok to make pronouncements about
an area you know nothing about, eh? You keep on harping on coverage, and
COVERAGE WAS NOT THE ISSUE. You go off on a tangent about how no one lives
here - perhaps you should look up the 2000 Census numbers and see for
yourself how many people live here. Again, it's not Los Angeles. But there
are plenty of people living here.

Don't tell me I'm using bad debate tactics when *you* are the one who keeps
redirecting the discussion to an irrelevant topic. I do not now have,
nor have I ever had, issues with VZW's coverage in Los Angeles and the High
Desert. I am not arguing that their coverage stinks, because it doesn't!
Don't try to argue with me about the population of an area where I *live*,
that you just happen to drive through occasionally. It makes you look quite
foolish.

> As for your I-15 example, you should tell the whole truth - Verizon has full
> coverage all the way to Vegas on the I-15.

Where did I say they didn't? What part of "I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR
COVERAGE" are you failing to comprehend? In fact, I went to Vegas in January
and my VZW phone worked fine all the way up. It also worked fine at the
convention center, which was where I was headed.

Try sticking to the topic at hand.

> My phone works fine in Baker. My
> phone works fine in 29 Palms. There is no place on the I-15 where it doesn't
> work....

Hm, you live in SoCal? You are aware that Twentynine Palms is nowhere NEAR
the I-15, right?

> I've already reported that I have had no trouble in Victorville - but there
> is that big, dry area nearby where nobody lives that is called "The Desert".
> I submit that "The Desert" does have spotty coverage due to a lack of
> customers located there.

But my complaint was specifically about Victorville, in a busy area that HAS
COVERAGE. My calls simply did not work. OBTW, Victorville is *in* the desert.
So your smug little smartass remark isn't quite accurate. :) 

> phone works. That's true virtually everywhere in the United States with a
> few rare exceptions......

So what?

> Oh, come on now, you're way too smart to lower yourself to accusing others
> of being "less objective" than you are.....:)  Maybe your are, but then maybe
> you aren't. After all, you have an ox to gore in this discussion.....:) 

You don't want to be accused of not being objective? Fine. You can start
by talking about the same problem I'm talking about, instead of using an
irrelevant argument to bolster your "it's not Verizon's fault" line.

Jeez - most Verizon *employees* I've spoken with aren't as argumentative as
you are. :) 

Want to know what's silly about this argument we're having? I actually AGREE
with you that many, if not most, issues could be resolved by reading
documentation provided by VZW - not just the contract, but the user's guides
and other docs. (I'm trying to get back to the original discussion, because
we went off on a huge tangent discussing my personal VZW issues, which are
not completely on-topic for this thread.) Then there's the question of
whether VZW is trying to be duplicitous. I argued "perhaps not, but there
are some questionable policies" and gave you an example. I resolved my issue
with that policy with the CSR, but I'm going to call another CSR and see if
they say the same thing. (If they do, IMHO, that would indicate that the
original CSR did NOT make a mistake, and that that actually is the policy.)

Another customer-unfriendly policy: My brother-in-law switched to Sprint.
Apparently, VZW's billing system records not only the date but also the time
you signed the contract. Since I don't remember the exact date, just for the
sake of argument, let's say his contract ended at 4pm. He came in on the day
his contract expired and canceled at 2pm, and VZW billed him $175 because he
was *two hours early.* Hm, I was never told that I had to come in at the
exact time the contract had originally been signed or I'd get hit with the ETF,
and I bet no one else is told that either. As long as you cancel on or after
the end date you should be fine. He got them to credit the $175, but why
should he have had to fight about it? He came in *on the contract end date*.
He shouldn't have been charged, period.

Another bit of stupidity from Verizon.

Are they better than many other carriers? I'd argue "yes." Even now, with
all the problems I've had, I'd still argue "yes." Are they perfect? Do they
always act in the customer's interest? No.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 2:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> Oh, good! Another conspiracy theory!....:) 
>
> Verizon got "bigger" and "better" by getting "bigger" and "better". One
> naturally follows the other

Not necessarily. For a while, the jumble of different policies and billing
systems could be very confusing. Fortunately, they got all of that stuff
cleaned up.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 3:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> Sometimes "your problem" is "your problem"....

If it's due to stupidity or failure to follow instructions on my part, it
SHOULD be my problem. If it's due to network issues beyond my control, they
need to take ownership of the problem. Actually, I don't believe you disagree
with me on this particular point.

> There is, as I've often said, room for disagreement - and room for
> negotiation. The company is not always wrong. The customer is not always
> right.

Agreed.

> All I've maintained is the tone and nature of the anti-Verizon rhetoric has
> become tedious in the extreme.

Perhaps. I see issues posted here that I disagree with, and others that I
don't.

> This forum has become little more than a
> venue where folks bitch endlessly

Rule #1 of customer service, after Rule #0 ("the customer is always right"),
is that people are more likely to complain about perceived problems than
to offer kudos. That's true here, it's true on other Internet discussion
groups like the ones at Howardforums, and it's true off the Net too.

> When/if you can't resolve your "problem" or differences, then you have other
> choices - which seems to be the course you chose based on what you've
> reported. I find no fault in that

and FWIW, I agree with you about most of the points you make here.

> You might be right - but I'm persuaded it has more to do with revenue
> generated by towers. If'n there ain't enough folks around to raise revenue
> from the tower, they probably won't put it in.....a simple business
> decision....!

There are towers there already. Not only in Victorville, but in the other
areas I discussed in the Goodbye thread too. I'll never, ever suggest that
Verizon start building towers where no one lives - that's tantamount to
business suicide - to maintain and erect those towers would cost lots of money
that VZW would be unlikely to recover. That's why I didn't whine too loudly
about lack of coverage at my house, since I live right at the edge of town,
and there is a big unincorporated area of San Bernardino County between here
and the next town where no one except maybe a couple hundred people live.
(Hell, not that many people live in the next town over, either.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 6:11:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Have a nice day, Steve - I sincerely hope you calm down and enjoy
life.....:) 

This has become far too ridiculous to continue.....

PC

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:EcCdncTqINrL8ZfcRVn-hQ@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
|
| > We've covered this ground before - it appears that there was no solution
| > that was satisfactory to both parties.
|
| In that case, if they weren't going to fix coverage areas that used to
| work, they should have let me out of my contract since they are refusing
to
| provide the service that they were providing previously. Just FYI, what
| actually happened is that I called in again for about the seventh or
eighth
| time in six months and found that they'd closed the ticket without telling
| me, having found no problems. I would have been happy to let a field
engineer
| from VZW have my phone for an afternoon - I could have met them down at
the
| VZW store. I don't think there are any firmware updates for my phone, and
it
| worked fine in Cleveland before I moved, and it worked fine for a
half-year
| in Victorville (all over Victorville, with the exception of Route 66
heading
| up towards Oro Grande, and there's a spot there that is extremely hilly
where
| ALL carriers tend to drop calls). My major problem was that they were
supposed
| to have contacted me to follow up, and they never did.
|
| > Assuming that things are exactly as you report above, it's a MISTAKE!
Dial
| > 611, explain it and it will be fixed. I've done that more than a few
times -
| > and all over the country.
|
| I resolved the problem
|
| > I knew that sooner or later you'd resort to personal invective and/or
| > name-calling. It's common in this and similar venues when one has lost
the
| > argument or has no case....:) 
|
| I call 'em as I see 'em. But I guess it's ok to make pronouncements about
| an area you know nothing about, eh? You keep on harping on coverage, and
| COVERAGE WAS NOT THE ISSUE. You go off on a tangent about how no one lives
| here - perhaps you should look up the 2000 Census numbers and see for
| yourself how many people live here. Again, it's not Los Angeles. But there
| are plenty of people living here.
|
| Don't tell me I'm using bad debate tactics when *you* are the one who
keeps
| redirecting the discussion to an irrelevant topic. I do not now have,
| nor have I ever had, issues with VZW's coverage in Los Angeles and the
High
| Desert. I am not arguing that their coverage stinks, because it doesn't!
| Don't try to argue with me about the population of an area where I *live*,
| that you just happen to drive through occasionally. It makes you look
quite
| foolish.
|
| > As for your I-15 example, you should tell the whole truth - Verizon has
full
| > coverage all the way to Vegas on the I-15.
|
| Where did I say they didn't? What part of "I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT
THEIR
| COVERAGE" are you failing to comprehend? In fact, I went to Vegas in
January
| and my VZW phone worked fine all the way up. It also worked fine at the
| convention center, which was where I was headed.
|
| Try sticking to the topic at hand.
|
| > My phone works fine in Baker. My
| > phone works fine in 29 Palms. There is no place on the I-15 where it
doesn't
| > work....
|
| Hm, you live in SoCal? You are aware that Twentynine Palms is nowhere NEAR
| the I-15, right?
|
| > I've already reported that I have had no trouble in Victorville - but
there
| > is that big, dry area nearby where nobody lives that is called "The
Desert".
| > I submit that "The Desert" does have spotty coverage due to a lack of
| > customers located there.
|
| But my complaint was specifically about Victorville, in a busy area that
HAS
| COVERAGE. My calls simply did not work. OBTW, Victorville is *in* the
desert.
| So your smug little smartass remark isn't quite accurate. :) 
|
| > phone works. That's true virtually everywhere in the United States with
a
| > few rare exceptions......
|
| So what?
|
| > Oh, come on now, you're way too smart to lower yourself to accusing
others
| > of being "less objective" than you are.....:)  Maybe your are, but then
maybe
| > you aren't. After all, you have an ox to gore in this discussion.....:) 
|
| You don't want to be accused of not being objective? Fine. You can start
| by talking about the same problem I'm talking about, instead of using an
| irrelevant argument to bolster your "it's not Verizon's fault" line.
|
| Jeez - most Verizon *employees* I've spoken with aren't as argumentative
as
| you are. :) 
|
| Want to know what's silly about this argument we're having? I actually
AGREE
| with you that many, if not most, issues could be resolved by reading
| documentation provided by VZW - not just the contract, but the user's
guides
| and other docs. (I'm trying to get back to the original discussion,
because
| we went off on a huge tangent discussing my personal VZW issues, which are
| not completely on-topic for this thread.) Then there's the question of
| whether VZW is trying to be duplicitous. I argued "perhaps not, but there
| are some questionable policies" and gave you an example. I resolved my
issue
| with that policy with the CSR, but I'm going to call another CSR and see
if
| they say the same thing. (If they do, IMHO, that would indicate that the
| original CSR did NOT make a mistake, and that that actually is the
policy.)
|
| Another customer-unfriendly policy: My brother-in-law switched to Sprint.
| Apparently, VZW's billing system records not only the date but also the
time
| you signed the contract. Since I don't remember the exact date, just for
the
| sake of argument, let's say his contract ended at 4pm. He came in on the
day
| his contract expired and canceled at 2pm, and VZW billed him $175 because
he
| was *two hours early.* Hm, I was never told that I had to come in at the
| exact time the contract had originally been signed or I'd get hit with the
ETF,
| and I bet no one else is told that either. As long as you cancel on or
after
| the end date you should be fine. He got them to credit the $175, but why
| should he have had to fight about it? He came in *on the contract end
date*.
| He shouldn't have been charged, period.
|
| Another bit of stupidity from Verizon.
|
| Are they better than many other carriers? I'd argue "yes." Even now, with
| all the problems I've had, I'd still argue "yes." Are they perfect? Do
they
| always act in the customer's interest? No.
|
|
| --
| JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
| Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
| PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
| Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 8:23:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> Have a nice day, Steve - I sincerely hope you calm down and enjoy
> life.....:) 

How completely immature of you: when I point out that you are arguing
about a point that I didn't originally bring up - which I have pointed out
multiple times - you end the conversation.

> This has become far too ridiculous to continue.....

I'll say. I'm tired of repeating myself, and having you ignore what I say.

Probably a good thing that the thread is over.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 30, 2004 9:32:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
> Please! You beating this trifle to death! You are swatting a fly with a
five
> inch gun.....all commission salespeople "try" to sell features....this
isn't
> NEWS! It's YOUR responsibility to know what you buy.....

He reappears. Interesting- you fail to mention that that a consumer can
only make a decision based on the information provided. Your defense of the
company here fails to mentionthat the information needed in this case could
have come from nowhere other than Verizon. Care to explain how false,
misleading or withheld information allows the customer to make an informed
decision?

>
> These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and everyone
> else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the largest
> and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing BETTER
> service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
> resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......

Best carrier is a very subjective term, and not consistantly based in fact.
Getting to large status does not have anything to do with the credibility or
integrity of a company. Worldcom, Enron, Adelphia all looked great from the
outside, didn't they?

>
> Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
> QUESTION!

The points mentioned in the original post are not items contained in the
Verizon Wireless contract, and were very clearly explained to the customer
(hence, no questions to ask). Of course, you can point out the portion of
the contract that specifically spells out the promotions offered at the time
of sale. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>
> As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone
else
> get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can get
> an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call. You can get easy,
> cheerful support by merely making a phone call. It's up to YOU to know
what
> you want and what you are buying - take personal responsibility instead of
> flailing away at Verizon employees......

....and calling Verizon costs them approximately $20 per call in back end
costs, not to mention the costs of any commission pullbacks they need to do
in these cases. So, to answer your question as to why they should fix this
perfect system- it would save them money.

>
> Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are
"protecting"
> buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....
>

What's nonsense is your reluctance to admit any mistakes made by Verizon,
and your assumption that customers' time is of so little consequence. I
hope they pay you a shitload of money to come on here in your little
cheerleader's outfit.
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 11:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:SMWdnUAsa77wIZfcRVn-jg@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
| > Have a nice day, Steve - I sincerely hope you calm down and enjoy
| > life.....:) 
|
| How completely immature of you: when I point out that you are arguing
| about a point that I didn't originally bring up - which I have pointed out
| multiple times - you end the conversation.

Yet more name calling....:(  The absolute fact is that what you were arguing
had nothing to do with my comments in re the OP and his "problem"....

I ended the conversation because it was simply becoming circular and because
I was tired of the incessant repetition of something never originally at
issue - and, because the insults were getting more tedious than that
incessant repetition.

| > This has become far too ridiculous to continue.....
|
| I'll say. I'm tired of repeating myself, and having you ignore what I say.

You seem angry because I won't be drawn into "your" fight and keep trying to
stick with mine - that's just life. I didn't ignore you as much as you chose
to ignore the subject of the thread and the "point".....

I will repeat, politely again, as I've always been polite in this thread,
I'm sorry your problem wasn't resolved in a manner that you found to be
satisfactory. That's regrettable, but, in my mind, not indicative of
"duplicity" on anyone's part....

And, finally, as I said, I appreciate and respect your point of view but I
don't share it. That's not ignoring what you say, that's simply not
agreeing....!

| Probably a good thing that the thread is over.

The very BEST lesson from this thread is that I was right in the first
place - WAY too much bandwidth is wasted on trifles in this venure. Most
"problems" can be easily solved while remembering that in an imperfect
world, some things aren't solved at all. Sadly, the other lesson is that too
many cannot discuss these subjects in a calm and rational way - more simply
put, too many cannot disagree without being disagreeable....

After all, all we're talking about here is cellular phone service - hardly
an "earth shattering" subject....

It would be nice if this venue reflected discussion of how things work,
differences among plans and equipment that can help the user and that rock
throwing by anyone at anyone stop - but, Usenet being what it is, that's a
pipe dream and I know it!......:) 

PC
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 11:39:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:_5udnfQQjZ8fR5fcRVn-sw@adelphia.com...
|
| "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
| news:%O8Oc.14344$mg6.7081@fed1read02...
| > Please! You beating this trifle to death! You are swatting a fly with a
| five
| > inch gun.....all commission salespeople "try" to sell features....this
| isn't
| > NEWS! It's YOUR responsibility to know what you buy.....
|
| He reappears. Interesting- you fail to mention that that a consumer can
| only make a decision based on the information provided. Your defense of
the
| company here fails to mentionthat the information needed in this case
could
| have come from nowhere other than Verizon. Care to explain how false,
| misleading or withheld information allows the customer to make an informed
| decision?

What part of it's your responsibility to know don't you understand?

If your contention is correct, and I'm sure it's happened, it's still rare
and unusual - that's called a "MISTAKE", not corporate duplicity. It remains
true that the fix is easy - usually a simple phone call which would take
less time than typing out a harangue in this venue....

| > These endless messages about the alleged duplicity of Verizon and
everyone
| > else are becoming really tedious.....Verizon didn't get to be the
largest
| > and the best carrier by being duplicitous, but rather by providing
BETTER
| > service, BETTER coverage and SANE procedures that permit customers to
| > resolve problems. Their system is in place. It works......
|
| Best carrier is a very subjective term, and not consistantly based in
fact.
| Getting to large status does not have anything to do with the credibility
or
| integrity of a company. Worldcom, Enron, Adelphia all looked great from
the
| outside, didn't they?

It would appear that your case of paranoia is the "galloping" variant.....:) 

| > Read the damn contract. If you don't understand a clause, etc., ASK A
| > QUESTION!
|
| The points mentioned in the original post are not items contained in the
| Verizon Wireless contract, and were very clearly explained to the customer
| (hence, no questions to ask). Of course, you can point out the portion of
| the contract that specifically spells out the promotions offered at the
time
| of sale. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

You can ask a question about what was "very clearly explained" as easily as
about what was/is written.

Again, the "problem" was a trifle easily solved by a phone call....and no
corporate duplicity should have been either implied or inferred without
something resembling "proof".....

| > As for your "tiered" system - why in the world should Verizon or anyone
| else
| > get themselves caught up in such nonsense? As it stands today, you can
get
| > an easy, cheerful refund by making a simple phone call. You can get
easy,
| > cheerful support by merely making a phone call. It's up to YOU to know
| what
| > you want and what you are buying - take personal responsibility instead
of
| > flailing away at Verizon employees......
|
| ...and calling Verizon costs them approximately $20 per call in back end
| costs, not to mention the costs of any commission pullbacks they need to
do
| in these cases. So, to answer your question as to why they should fix
this
| perfect system- it would save them money.

I don't see anything that needs "fixing". They take the phone calls. They
are invariably cheerful and helpful. They invariably "fix" what the customer
is unhappy about - with some exceptions that, in my experience, are
technical rather than a misunderstanding or misstatement of terms. They give
refunds. They respong.

What's the problem????

| > Why must you make this SO complicated and pretend that you are
| "protecting"
| > buyers from duplicitous sales people? That's just nonsense.....
| >
|
| What's nonsense is your reluctance to admit any mistakes made by Verizon,
| and your assumption that customers' time is of so little consequence. I
| hope they pay you a shitload of money to come on here in your little
| cheerleader's outfit.

I never said they didn't make MISTAKES, it was I who first used the word in
this thread. My point was that they FIX mistakes pretty easily and without
much fuss....everybody's time is of some consequence, I'm glad they don't
waste much of mine when I need to call them or change something.

And, I almost congratulate you, you made it all the way to the last sentence
before you got rude and insulting - but, you just couldn't resist, could
you?......:) 

Have a nice day!

PC
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 12:56:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:32OOc.23067$mg6.13871@fed1read02...

>
> The very BEST lesson from this thread is that I was right in the first
> place - WAY too much bandwidth is wasted on trifles in this venure. Most
> "problems" can be easily solved while remembering that in an imperfect
> world, some things aren't solved at all. Sadly, the other lesson is that
too
> many cannot discuss these subjects in a calm and rational way - more
simply
> put, too many cannot disagree without being disagreeable....

I disagree- the best lesson from this thread is that you have shown yourself
to be incapable of admitting that Verizon shows itself to be an inefficient
and very customer unfriendly at times. Your enthusiastic cheerleading,
coupled with your inability to see fault in recurring issues (situations
such as the OP described litter Usenet) makes your posts sound like they
come from the Verizon boardroom itself. They are not much different than
other carriers, but that is not a reason to ignore the faults. Once YOU
realize and accept that, you will understand that threads like this are a
part of the industry, and maybe you'll be able to contribute something more
than, "Verizon is great and would never do anything like this on purpose."
You may also end up realizing that Verizon is not the well-oiled machine you
protray them to be, and that there are numerous shortcomings in their
billing practices, cost efficiencies and the expectations they allow their
customers to have.

>
> After all, all we're talking about here is cellular phone service - hardly
> an "earth shattering" subject....

Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication, cellular has
become a necessity for many people. It may not be 'earth shattering', but
it certainly is important enough to merit discussion.

>
> It would be nice if this venue reflected discussion of how things work,
> differences among plans and equipment that can help the user and that rock
> throwing by anyone at anyone stop - but, Usenet being what it is, that's a
> pipe dream and I know it!......:) 
>

Would rock throwing include telling people that they don't know what they're
talking about, or that they don't 'understand' the technology they use on a
daily basis? If so, we have a 'pot-kettle-black' situation here.
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 2:46:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:9M2dndDyAsCOLpbcRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
|
| "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
| news:32OOc.23067$mg6.13871@fed1read02...
|
| >
| > The very BEST lesson from this thread is that I was right in the first
| > place - WAY too much bandwidth is wasted on trifles in this venure. Most
| > "problems" can be easily solved while remembering that in an imperfect
| > world, some things aren't solved at all. Sadly, the other lesson is that
| too
| > many cannot discuss these subjects in a calm and rational way - more
| simply
| > put, too many cannot disagree without being disagreeable....
|
| I disagree- the best lesson from this thread is that you have shown
yourself
| to be incapable of admitting that Verizon shows itself to be an
inefficient
| and very customer unfriendly at times. Your enthusiastic cheerleading,
| coupled with your inability to see fault in recurring issues (situations
| such as the OP described litter Usenet) makes your posts sound like they
| come from the Verizon boardroom itself. They are not much different than
| other carriers, but that is not a reason to ignore the faults. Once YOU
| realize and accept that, you will understand that threads like this are a
| part of the industry, and maybe you'll be able to contribute something
more
| than, "Verizon is great and would never do anything like this on purpose."
| You may also end up realizing that Verizon is not the well-oiled machine
you
| protray them to be, and that there are numerous shortcomings in their
| billing practices, cost efficiencies and the expectations they allow their
| customers to have.

I was right, I'm sorry to say, you are afflicted with galloping paranoia -
you can't see anything but evil in anyone....

| > After all, all we're talking about here is cellular phone service -
hardly
| > an "earth shattering" subject....
|
| Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication, cellular has
| become a necessity for many people. It may not be 'earth shattering', but
| it certainly is important enough to merit discussion.

In the context of this debate, it's a petty trifle....

| > It would be nice if this venue reflected discussion of how things work,
| > differences among plans and equipment that can help the user and that
rock
| > throwing by anyone at anyone stop - but, Usenet being what it is, that's
a
| > pipe dream and I know it!......:) 
| >
|
| Would rock throwing include telling people that they don't know what
they're
| talking about, or that they don't 'understand' the technology they use on
a
| daily basis? If so, we have a 'pot-kettle-black' situation here.

No, we don't - we have more galloping paranoia......

Nobody said you didn't know what you're talking about - I, for one, merely
disagreed and advanced another view of the situation......

PC
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 4:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> | have come from nowhere other than Verizon. Care to explain how false,
> | misleading or withheld information allows the customer to make an informed
> | decision?
>
> What part of it's your responsibility to know don't you understand?

What part of "it IS your responsibility to ask, but it's the company's
responsibility to provide the right answers" don't YOU understand?

Another data point which hasn't been discussed: You say no duplicity has
occurred on the part of the company. Think about this, however: consumer
perception will be that if someone intentionally misleads a customer (and
some reps DO do this), that the company has misled them. Not an outrageous
assumption, seeing as how the reps are part of the company. True? Perhaps
not 100% true. But there is some truth to the perception.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 4:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:JqWdnXzCx_qrSJbcRVn-og@lmi.net...
| Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
| > | have come from nowhere other than Verizon. Care to explain how false,
| > | misleading or withheld information allows the customer to make an
informed
| > | decision?
| >
| > What part of it's your responsibility to know don't you understand?
|
| What part of "it IS your responsibility to ask, but it's the company's
| responsibility to provide the right answers" don't YOU understand?

I've seen no evidence beyond anecdotal contentions to support the fact the
it's corporate policy to mislead anyone. IF an employee makes a mistake, it
should be corrected. My contention has always been that Verizon does correct
mistakes...

| Another data point which hasn't been discussed: You say no duplicity has
| occurred on the part of the company. Think about this, however: consumer
| perception will be that if someone intentionally misleads a customer (and
| some reps DO do this), that the company has misled them. Not an outrageous
| assumption, seeing as how the reps are part of the company. True? Perhaps
| not 100% true. But there is some truth to the perception.

I agree that this "perception" seems to be overly prevalent - and seems to
me to be totally unwarranted. It's galloping paranoia....

Some reps not only make mistakes, but intentionally do things that we all
agree are wrong. I don't see those reps lasting long or being promoted for
their behavior - since repairing the damage they do costs the company
serious money, I doubt the company rewards such behavior.....

I don't hold the entire company responsible for the mistakes or intentional
wrongs done by individual employees - we still recruit employees from the
human race, a rather flawed species overall.....:) 

PC
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 5:10:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> I was right, I'm sorry to say, you are afflicted with galloping paranoia -
> you can't see anything but evil in anyone....

<sarcasm>
You're right. After all, he did say "at times", not "all the time."
</sarcasm>

How does saying X isn't perfect amount to not being able to see anything but
evil?

Do you always have this much trouble arguing facts with people?


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 5:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

> I've not seen that recently. When you lived in Ohio and "commented", you
> were always polite, informative and helpful - I don't see that any
> longer.....:( 

I can give you plenty of examples. Even recent examples from this newsgroup.

> Is it your Id that requires you to post?....:)  Superego, maybe?....:) 
> C'mon, you're a better man than that sort of cheap shot suggests....!

It was an observation. It wasn't meant as a cheap shot, and I'm sorry you
read it that way.

> For the same reasons everyone else does - but I'm not likely to hang around
> too much longer for the useful information is becoming less apparent by the
> day.....:( 

I'd really, really love to say I'll miss your posts.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 9:19:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
> cellular has become a necessity for many people.

I think my 17yr old daughter would agree with you. Can you
point out anybody else and why?

-Quick
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 12:20:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>
>> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
>> cellular has become a necessity for many people.
>
> I think my 17yr old daughter would agree with you. Can you
> point out anybody else and why?

People like Bagphone Larry from Camden, SC. :) 

Y'all know Larry W4CSC. He does a lot of business over his cell phone, by
his own admission. So do many other people.

My father's sales reps use the company's Nextel phones all the time to
call in and check stock or get information for their customers. There's
another example.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 2:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
>>> cellular has become a necessity for many people.
>>
>> I think my 17yr old daughter would agree with you. Can you
>> point out anybody else and why?
>
> People like Bagphone Larry from Camden, SC. :) 
>
> Y'all know Larry W4CSC. He does a lot of business over his cell
> phone, by his own admission. So do many other people.
>
> My father's sales reps use the company's Nextel phones all the time to
> call in and check stock or get information for their customers.
> There's another example.

Weak Steven. That doesn't qualify as necessity. It's convenience. Are
you claiming there are no pay phones? Just because Larry does a lot
of business over his cell phone doesn't make it a necessity. If he was
required to drive back to his home/office each time he had to make a
call then you might consider it a necessity for his business. But an
answering service and payphones would be sufficient.

I think we could make the same claim for your father's sales reps?

next...

-Quick
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 10:34:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1091469095.627112@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Scott Stephenson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
> >>> cellular has become a necessity for many people.
> >>
> >> I think my 17yr old daughter would agree with you. Can you
> >> point out anybody else and why?
> >
> > People like Bagphone Larry from Camden, SC. :) 
> >
> > Y'all know Larry W4CSC. He does a lot of business over his cell
> > phone, by his own admission. So do many other people.
> >
> > My father's sales reps use the company's Nextel phones all the time to
> > call in and check stock or get information for their customers.
> > There's another example.
>
> Weak Steven. That doesn't qualify as necessity. It's convenience. Are
> you claiming there are no pay phones? Just because Larry does a lot
> of business over his cell phone doesn't make it a necessity. If he was
> required to drive back to his home/office each time he had to make a
> call then you might consider it a necessity for his business. But an
> answering service and payphones would be sufficient.
>
> I think we could make the same claim for your father's sales reps?
>
> next...
>
> -Quick
>

Geez, Quick. I guess you'd classify flush toilets as conveniences too?
You're pretty stern, you know that?
Why aren't answering services a convenience item, also?
After all, the postal service still delivers letters right to our doors for us.
Waiting for delivery would be merely another inconvenience, wouldn't it?
---JRC---
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 10:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1091469095.627112@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>>> Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
>>>>> cellular has become a necessity for many people.
>>>>
>>>> I think my 17yr old daughter would agree with you. Can you
>>>> point out anybody else and why?
>>>
>>> People like Bagphone Larry from Camden, SC. :) 
>>>
>>> Y'all know Larry W4CSC. He does a lot of business over his cell
>>> phone, by his own admission. So do many other people.
>>>
>>> My father's sales reps use the company's Nextel phones all the time
>>> to call in and check stock or get information for their customers.
>>> There's another example.
>>
>> Weak Steven. That doesn't qualify as necessity. It's convenience. Are
>> you claiming there are no pay phones? Just because Larry does a lot
>> of business over his cell phone doesn't make it a necessity. If he
>> was required to drive back to his home/office each time he had to
>> make a call then you might consider it a necessity for his business.
>> But an answering service and payphones would be sufficient.
>>
>> I think we could make the same claim for your father's sales reps?
>>
>> next...
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>
> Geez, Quick. I guess you'd classify flush toilets as conveniences
> too?
> You're pretty stern, you know that?
> Why aren't answering services a convenience item, also?
> After all, the postal service still delivers letters right to our
> doors for us.
> Waiting for delivery would be merely another inconvenience, wouldn't
> it?
> ---JRC---

The original assertion was:
>>>>> Agreed to a point, but as a form of mainstream communication,
>>>>> cellular has become a necessity for many people.

I think a good rule of thumb would be the following:

If the activity/business/etc. was created in response/conjunction to the
technology then the technology would be a necessity for that
activity/business/etc.

If the activity/business/etc. was not pratical without the technology
then the technology would be a necessity for that activity/business/etc.
For example, if it significantly reduces the cost of doing business or
increases the profit margin to a measurable extent.

Is that reasonable? Is it a *necessity* for many people? Maybe, but
I'm not convinced.

-Quick
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 11:05:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My father's sales reps use the company's Nextel phones all the time to
>> call in and check stock or get information for their customers.
>> There's another example.
>
> Weak Steven. That doesn't qualify as necessity. It's convenience.

Can't comment on Larry, but I am pretty sure my dad's sales reps don't want
to inconvenience their customers by tying up the customers' phone lines to
make calls. They don't necessarily need *Nextel*, although I think all of
the people at the company that *use* the Nextel handsets, my father included,
really like the Direct Connect feature. But the family business is in an
industry where what is being sold is a commodity, and their customers can
buy from a number of different suppliers, so I'd say that not inconviencing
the customers is a good thing.


> Are
> you claiming there are no pay phones?

Let me explain a little bit more about the company. They're a flooring
installation supplies distributor - selling glue, padding, installation tools,
underlayment, and other installation products, and they have some specialty
flooring lines that they sell too. Between my father and his two reps, the
territory covered includes all of Northern Ohio and a chunk of Southeast
Michigan. In the scenario I just described, the sales rep will generally be
at a customer's place. This will generally be a flooring or general contractor
or a retail store. Selling residential is one thing, but on commercial and
institutional jobs, the end-user will generally be taking bids for a project
(even the end-users that aren't government agencies). Someone going in to
one of these places and putting together a quote for, for example, sports
flooring for a gym for a local school district, will want to be able to put
together his quote quickly. With the cell phones, a sales rep can call or DC
the office to check pricing, for example. Or, on a more mundane level, a
customer may need to check if the warehouse has two pallets of his favorite
carpet adhesive available for a big job. If the sales rep can call in and
check stock and have the inventory marked for that customer, it can often be
the difference between getting the sale and losing it to a competitor. Going
to find a pay phone isn't always an option (and we won't even get into the
fact that lots of places that once have pay phones no longer do - that's a
separate discussion).

> of business over his cell phone doesn't make it a necessity. If he was
> required to drive back to his home/office each time he had to make a
> call then you might consider it a necessity for his business. But an
> answering service and payphones would be sufficient.

Again, I can't comment on Larry. I only know he really relies on his phone
because he's said so here. I have given what I believe to be a good example
of the "necessity" of having a cell phone in this post... it can give you a
huge competitive edge.

> I think we could make the same claim for your father's sales reps?

See above.

Does the aforementioned example make sense? (I think it does.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
!