Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why I went with T-Mobile

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:01:08 AM

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

I was trying to choose between getting a Motorola V600 through T-mobile
as a cellphone that I could use as a modem and access the Net at
dial-up speeds, and an Audiovox PC5220 airlink card for broadband
access, through Verizon, then using VoIP for voice calls. I really
wanted a combination of a cellphone and a wireless broadband router,
but it seems that is not yet available in a single instrument, and I
didn't want to have to pay for two services when I so seldom make or
receive voice calls while away from the office.

But what finally decided the issue was the attitude of the two
companies toward new customers and their concerns about giving out
social security numbers.

Readers can do a Google search on the issues associated with social
security numbers and the dangers their use entails, especially for
politically active people like me -- It is a felony, punishable by 5-30
years, for misstating a social security number, with strict liability,
so that is not a defense that the error was innocent or made by some
clerk and not the applicant.

When I asked about opening an account with T-Mobile, and explained that
I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
for anything, they said, fine, we don't need one, but we ask for a $500
deposit. That was fine with me.

But Verizon was inflexible. They said their software couldn't accept an
application without filling in the Social security number field. So I
asked about opening a corporate account. They said they could do that,
and asked for the corporate Taxpayer Identification Number, to which I
don't have the objections I do to the social security number. Then they
did a check and couldn't find a credit record. Not unexpected. My
corporation doesn't do credit. So they asked for a certificate from the
IRS confirming the TIN. I said I don't have one, don't think the IRS
issues such a thing, and if they ever sent me one it is not something I
would keep as some kind of credential. Then they asked me for a
business license. I explained that it is a corporation, so its charter
is its business license. Then they said they couldn't find anything on
it in Texas. I replied it is a Nevada corporation, but they can get on
the Net, browse to the Nevada Secretary of State's website, where the
active status of the corporation can easily be confirmed and printed
out. They said they didn't have web access at their office, which was
the main office for Austin, Texas. Then I proposed to just pay the
entire first year of service in a single lump sum, which, because it
would be a flat monthy rate, there would be no possibility of
additional charges and therefore no need for a credit check. It would
be a cash deal. They said they couldn't do a cash deal.

I hope someone from Verizon reads this and pays attention. There are a
lot of honest people with plenty of money, wanting service, who also
have principled objections to giving out social security numbers, or
having to jump through hoops, when they are prepared to pay a whole
year in advance.

I also invite others to make similar objections to Verizon and to
everyone else.

Be aware that if the feds don't like your politics, they can "discover"
you have misstated a social security number sometime, on a document
that has passed through many hands, was perhaps prepared by someone
else with their errors, and perhaps was fabricated by the feds, leaving
you no defense. Think it won't happen to you? It happened to a lawyer
friend who had the temerity to file seven civil rights suits against a
local police department for rights violations, a department with
connections to a federal judge, who sicced the FBI on the lawyer, with
the intent of forcing him to give up his license to practice law and
abandon his clients even as the cases were proceeding, one of them to
the U.S. Supreme Court. (We suspect the police department, federal
judge, and FBI to be complicit in the local narcotics trade.)

Readers are also advised to never, ever talk to federal agents, not
even to give them the time of day, lest you be "Stewarted": Charged
with a federal felony for "lying to a federal investigator", unless
there are independent witnesses, and the entire session is videotaped,
with everyone getting copies, and the copies kept in secure locations.
The feds are notorious for "testilying" to get people they don't like,
such as people who criticize them. In Martha Stewart's case there was
no audio or video record, just their word against hers, and no
independent witnesses. Best policy is to refuse to talk to them at all,
even with your lawyer present. They can get to your lawyer, too, so you
can't count on him to stand by you.

For more on this and other topics see http://www.constitution.org where
you can get my email address, and http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com

More about : mobile

Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:53:37 AM

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

> I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
> for anything

I agree with you completely.
March 27, 2005 10:34:26 AM

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

Blah blah blah blah blah... so, you really wanted thatt M V600 eh...?

<jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote in message
news:1111914068.873788.227620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I was trying to choose between getting a Motorola V600 through T-mobile
> as a cellphone that I could use as a modem and access the Net at
> dial-up speeds, and an Audiovox PC5220 airlink card for broadband
> access, through Verizon, then using VoIP for voice calls. I really
> wanted a combination of a cellphone and a wireless broadband router,
> but it seems that is not yet available in a single instrument, and I
> didn't want to have to pay for two services when I so seldom make or
> receive voice calls while away from the office.
>
> But what finally decided the issue was the attitude of the two
> companies toward new customers and their concerns about giving out
> social security numbers.
>
> Readers can do a Google search on the issues associated with social
> security numbers and the dangers their use entails, especially for
> politically active people like me -- It is a felony, punishable by 5-30
> years, for misstating a social security number, with strict liability,
> so that is not a defense that the error was innocent or made by some
> clerk and not the applicant.
>
> When I asked about opening an account with T-Mobile, and explained that
> I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
> for anything, they said, fine, we don't need one, but we ask for a $500
> deposit. That was fine with me.
>
> But Verizon was inflexible. They said their software couldn't accept an
> application without filling in the Social security number field. So I
> asked about opening a corporate account. They said they could do that,
> and asked for the corporate Taxpayer Identification Number, to which I
> don't have the objections I do to the social security number. Then they
> did a check and couldn't find a credit record. Not unexpected. My
> corporation doesn't do credit. So they asked for a certificate from the
> IRS confirming the TIN. I said I don't have one, don't think the IRS
> issues such a thing, and if they ever sent me one it is not something I
> would keep as some kind of credential. Then they asked me for a
> business license. I explained that it is a corporation, so its charter
> is its business license. Then they said they couldn't find anything on
> it in Texas. I replied it is a Nevada corporation, but they can get on
> the Net, browse to the Nevada Secretary of State's website, where the
> active status of the corporation can easily be confirmed and printed
> out. They said they didn't have web access at their office, which was
> the main office for Austin, Texas. Then I proposed to just pay the
> entire first year of service in a single lump sum, which, because it
> would be a flat monthy rate, there would be no possibility of
> additional charges and therefore no need for a credit check. It would
> be a cash deal. They said they couldn't do a cash deal.
>
> I hope someone from Verizon reads this and pays attention. There are a
> lot of honest people with plenty of money, wanting service, who also
> have principled objections to giving out social security numbers, or
> having to jump through hoops, when they are prepared to pay a whole
> year in advance.
>
> I also invite others to make similar objections to Verizon and to
> everyone else.
>
> Be aware that if the feds don't like your politics, they can "discover"
> you have misstated a social security number sometime, on a document
> that has passed through many hands, was perhaps prepared by someone
> else with their errors, and perhaps was fabricated by the feds, leaving
> you no defense. Think it won't happen to you? It happened to a lawyer
> friend who had the temerity to file seven civil rights suits against a
> local police department for rights violations, a department with
> connections to a federal judge, who sicced the FBI on the lawyer, with
> the intent of forcing him to give up his license to practice law and
> abandon his clients even as the cases were proceeding, one of them to
> the U.S. Supreme Court. (We suspect the police department, federal
> judge, and FBI to be complicit in the local narcotics trade.)
>
> Readers are also advised to never, ever talk to federal agents, not
> even to give them the time of day, lest you be "Stewarted": Charged
> with a federal felony for "lying to a federal investigator", unless
> there are independent witnesses, and the entire session is videotaped,
> with everyone getting copies, and the copies kept in secure locations.
> The feds are notorious for "testilying" to get people they don't like,
> such as people who criticize them. In Martha Stewart's case there was
> no audio or video record, just their word against hers, and no
> independent witnesses. Best policy is to refuse to talk to them at all,
> even with your lawyer present. They can get to your lawyer, too, so you
> can't count on him to stand by you.
>
> For more on this and other topics see http://www.constitution.org where
> you can get my email address, and http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com
>
Related resources
March 27, 2005 12:59:26 PM

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

On 27 Mar 2005 05:53:37 -0800, "JZ" <zwerl1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
>> for anything
>
>I agree with you completely.

Me two or is it three?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:50:45 PM

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

JZ wrote:

> > I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
> > for anything
>
> I agree with you completely.

It does not matter. Your SSN is already in several of those huge datminer
databases.

LB
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:10:04 PM

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

FWIW, when I signed up with Verizon - about three years ago - they also
insisted on my SS #. I was adamant in my refusals to give it to them,
however, and after their consulting with various levels of supervisory
personnel, they settled for the last 4 digits of it.

Frankster wrote:
> Blah blah blah blah blah... so, you really wanted thatt M V600 eh...?
>
> <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote in message
> news:1111914068.873788.227620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I was trying to choose between getting a Motorola V600 through T-mobile
>>as a cellphone that I could use as a modem and access the Net at
>>dial-up speeds, and an Audiovox PC5220 airlink card for broadband
>>access, through Verizon, then using VoIP for voice calls. I really
>>wanted a combination of a cellphone and a wireless broadband router,
>>but it seems that is not yet available in a single instrument, and I
>>didn't want to have to pay for two services when I so seldom make or
>>receive voice calls while away from the office.
>>
>>But what finally decided the issue was the attitude of the two
>>companies toward new customers and their concerns about giving out
>>social security numbers.
>>
>>Readers can do a Google search on the issues associated with social
>>security numbers and the dangers their use entails, especially for
>>politically active people like me -- It is a felony, punishable by 5-30
>>years, for misstating a social security number, with strict liability,
>>so that is not a defense that the error was innocent or made by some
>>clerk and not the applicant.
>>
>>When I asked about opening an account with T-Mobile, and explained that
>>I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to anyone
>>for anything, they said, fine, we don't need one, but we ask for a $500
>>deposit. That was fine with me.
>>
>>But Verizon was inflexible. They said their software couldn't accept an
>>application without filling in the Social security number field. So I
>>asked about opening a corporate account. They said they could do that,
>>and asked for the corporate Taxpayer Identification Number, to which I
>>don't have the objections I do to the social security number. Then they
>>did a check and couldn't find a credit record. Not unexpected. My
>>corporation doesn't do credit. So they asked for a certificate from the
>>IRS confirming the TIN. I said I don't have one, don't think the IRS
>>issues such a thing, and if they ever sent me one it is not something I
>>would keep as some kind of credential. Then they asked me for a
>>business license. I explained that it is a corporation, so its charter
>>is its business license. Then they said they couldn't find anything on
>>it in Texas. I replied it is a Nevada corporation, but they can get on
>>the Net, browse to the Nevada Secretary of State's website, where the
>>active status of the corporation can easily be confirmed and printed
>>out. They said they didn't have web access at their office, which was
>>the main office for Austin, Texas. Then I proposed to just pay the
>>entire first year of service in a single lump sum, which, because it
>>would be a flat monthy rate, there would be no possibility of
>>additional charges and therefore no need for a credit check. It would
>>be a cash deal. They said they couldn't do a cash deal.
>>
>>I hope someone from Verizon reads this and pays attention. There are a
>>lot of honest people with plenty of money, wanting service, who also
>>have principled objections to giving out social security numbers, or
>>having to jump through hoops, when they are prepared to pay a whole
>>year in advance.
>>
>>I also invite others to make similar objections to Verizon and to
>>everyone else.
>>
>>Be aware that if the feds don't like your politics, they can "discover"
>>you have misstated a social security number sometime, on a document
>>that has passed through many hands, was perhaps prepared by someone
>>else with their errors, and perhaps was fabricated by the feds, leaving
>>you no defense. Think it won't happen to you? It happened to a lawyer
>>friend who had the temerity to file seven civil rights suits against a
>>local police department for rights violations, a department with
>>connections to a federal judge, who sicced the FBI on the lawyer, with
>>the intent of forcing him to give up his license to practice law and
>>abandon his clients even as the cases were proceeding, one of them to
>>the U.S. Supreme Court. (We suspect the police department, federal
>>judge, and FBI to be complicit in the local narcotics trade.)
>>
>>Readers are also advised to never, ever talk to federal agents, not
>>even to give them the time of day, lest you be "Stewarted": Charged
>>with a federal felony for "lying to a federal investigator", unless
>>there are independent witnesses, and the entire session is videotaped,
>>with everyone getting copies, and the copies kept in secure locations.
>>The feds are notorious for "testilying" to get people they don't like,
>>such as people who criticize them. In Martha Stewart's case there was
>>no audio or video record, just their word against hers, and no
>>independent witnesses. Best policy is to refuse to talk to them at all,
>>even with your lawyer present. They can get to your lawyer, too, so you
>>can't count on him to stand by you.
>>
>>For more on this and other topics see http://www.constitution.org where
>>you can get my email address, and http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:10:05 PM

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

Try using Alt Soc Num 078-05-1120, it was on a sample soc card put in
wallets in the 60's-80's... Valid number but no hits against it. Funny enuf,
there are thousands of verizon accounts with that number.

You do know that soc numbers are not unique don't you? There are millions of
people that have dupes/triples/etc of the same number. Even SSA uses Soc#
AND Name as the key to your account.


Peter Ross wrote:
> FWIW, when I signed up with Verizon - about three years ago - they
> also insisted on my SS #. I was adamant in my refusals to give it to
> them, however, and after their consulting with various levels of
> supervisory personnel, they settled for the last 4 digits of it.
>
> Frankster wrote:
>> Blah blah blah blah blah... so, you really wanted thatt M V600 eh...?
>>
>> <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote in message
>> news:1111914068.873788.227620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I was trying to choose between getting a Motorola V600 through
>>> T-mobile as a cellphone that I could use as a modem and access the
>>> Net at dial-up speeds, and an Audiovox PC5220 airlink card for
>>> broadband access, through Verizon, then using VoIP for voice calls.
>>> I really wanted a combination of a cellphone and a wireless
>>> broadband router, but it seems that is not yet available in a
>>> single instrument, and I didn't want to have to pay for two
>>> services when I so seldom make or receive voice calls while away
>>> from the office. But what finally decided the issue was the attitude of
>>> the two
>>> companies toward new customers and their concerns about giving out
>>> social security numbers.
>>>
>>> Readers can do a Google search on the issues associated with social
>>> security numbers and the dangers their use entails, especially for
>>> politically active people like me -- It is a felony, punishable by
>>> 5-30 years, for misstating a social security number, with strict
>>> liability, so that is not a defense that the error was innocent or
>>> made by some clerk and not the applicant.
>>>
>>> When I asked about opening an account with T-Mobile, and explained
>>> that I refuse on principle to give out my social security number to
>>> anyone for anything, they said, fine, we don't need one, but we ask
>>> for a $500 deposit. That was fine with me.
>>>
>>> But Verizon was inflexible. They said their software couldn't
>>> accept an application without filling in the Social security number
>>> field. So I asked about opening a corporate account. They said they
>>> could do that, and asked for the corporate Taxpayer Identification
>>> Number, to which I don't have the objections I do to the social
>>> security number. Then they did a check and couldn't find a credit
>>> record. Not unexpected. My corporation doesn't do credit. So they
>>> asked for a certificate from the IRS confirming the TIN. I said I
>>> don't have one, don't think the IRS issues such a thing, and if
>>> they ever sent me one it is not something I would keep as some kind
>>> of credential. Then they asked me for a business license. I
>>> explained that it is a corporation, so its charter is its business
>>> license. Then they said they couldn't find anything on it in Texas.
>>> I replied it is a Nevada corporation, but they can get on the Net,
>>> browse to the Nevada Secretary of State's website, where the active
>>> status of the corporation can easily be confirmed and printed out.
>>> They said they didn't have web access at their office, which was
>>> the main office for Austin, Texas. Then I proposed to just pay the
>>> entire first year of service in a single lump sum, which, because
>>> it would be a flat monthy rate, there would be no possibility of
>>> additional charges and therefore no need for a credit check. It
>>> would be a cash deal. They said they couldn't do a cash deal. I hope
>>> someone from Verizon reads this and pays attention. There
>>> are a lot of honest people with plenty of money, wanting service,
>>> who also have principled objections to giving out social security
>>> numbers, or having to jump through hoops, when they are prepared to
>>> pay a whole year in advance.
>>>
>>> I also invite others to make similar objections to Verizon and to
>>> everyone else.
>>>
>>> Be aware that if the feds don't like your politics, they can
>>> "discover" you have misstated a social security number sometime, on
>>> a document that has passed through many hands, was perhaps prepared
>>> by someone else with their errors, and perhaps was fabricated by
>>> the feds, leaving you no defense. Think it won't happen to you? It
>>> happened to a lawyer friend who had the temerity to file seven
>>> civil rights suits against a local police department for rights
>>> violations, a department with connections to a federal judge, who
>>> sicced the FBI on the lawyer, with the intent of forcing him to
>>> give up his license to practice law and abandon his clients even as
>>> the cases were proceeding, one of them to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>> (We suspect the police department, federal judge, and FBI to be
>>> complicit in the local narcotics trade.) Readers are also advised to
>>> never, ever talk to federal agents, not
>>> even to give them the time of day, lest you be "Stewarted": Charged
>>> with a federal felony for "lying to a federal investigator", unless
>>> there are independent witnesses, and the entire session is
>>> videotaped, with everyone getting copies, and the copies kept in
>>> secure locations. The feds are notorious for "testilying" to get
>>> people they don't like, such as people who criticize them. In
>>> Martha Stewart's case there was no audio or video record, just
>>> their word against hers, and no independent witnesses. Best policy
>>> is to refuse to talk to them at all, even with your lawyer present.
>>> They can get to your lawyer, too, so you can't count on him to
>>> stand by you. For more on this and other topics see
>>> http://www.constitution.org
>>> where you can get my email address, and
>>> http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com
!