Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Privacy

Verizon Fights Back Against Mobile Phone Spam 124

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the corporate-cheerleading-is-ok-this-time dept.
The Register is reporting that Verizon filed two separate lawsuits earlier this week against companies it claims spammed their customers with automated telemarketing calls. In addition to seeking a cease and desist, they are also apparently seeking "monetary damages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Fights Back Against Mobile Phone Spam More

Verizon Fights Back Against Mobile Phone Spam

Comments Filter:

  • phonetables (Score:2, Interesting)

    by b100dian ( 771163 )
    Please develop a filtering software w/ rules for phone numbers.
    I will configure it myself:)

    Just don't let anyone "Ping" me:)
    • Well for my phone there are filtering packages, for both calls [novomobile.com] and sms [smartphone.net].

      However as I use a phone powered by WindowsMobile I doubt many /. readers would be able to avail themselves of the software <g>

    • Just a filter that would only accept calls with IDs and/or only from those who are in the phones directory would be fine for me.

      Must be annoying for people on night shifts who still would like their family to be able to call them. One shouldn't have to unplug the cord or turning the phone off.

  • See? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Lord Duran ( 834815 )
    Even big evil corporations hate spammers.
    • It'd be nice if they'd do something about a newsgroup spammer now via Verizon who's currently running a BI of 2200 in the 45 day window. (Even UUNET has whack-a-moled this guy a few times, ye gods!)
    • Just as Verizon is lashing out against "spammers", they are doing the same to thier own customers. My wife recently recieved not one, but 3 text message, from Verizon, telling her that she can upgrade her plan. When we called to ask them to stop, their response was the her current plan "entitled her" to receive text message of plan upgrades. We asked them to stop, they said "No." It wasn't until I spoke with a manager, and let him know that they would be losing my wife, myself, and my company (a few tho

  • Easy solution to phone spam... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Simply charge the sender the full rate to send the message..

    Well Duh!

    • Re:Easy solution to phone spam... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:51AM (#13482103)
      That's what's being done in France and Belgium. But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number. In France, a cellphone number starts with 06, in Belgium, a cellphone number has 10 digits instead of 9. This means that someone who dials such a number knows he's calling a cellphone number, and therefore knows he's gonna be hit with a higher rate.

      In the US, if you charged people more to dial a number that looks exactly like a landline phone number, you'd quickly have a slew of lawsuits from people who stayed on the phone for hours, only to discover it wasn't a normal phone number and they're broke or something. That's why the cost is shared in the US: the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference.
      • why not move the cell phone numbers to a separate area code then?
        • Even simpler, just make messages (of any sort - SMS, MMS) sender-pays-all.

          Many home phones are getting this functionality as well, so even in the UK (Mobile numbers start 07) you can't guarantee in the long run that you will be messaging a mobile or a phone number, although when you are it will be obvious!

          That way you can still have your mobile number smushed into the rest of the nation's telephone number scheme, without paying however much to receive spam texts, and sharing the cost of telephone calls.
        • The costs would be immense. A huge amount of software and hardware would have to be modified and reconfigured. There probably aren't enough 3-digit area codes left for all of the cellular phone subscribers. Are you going to memorize all of the new cellular-only area codes?

          Most European telephone systems were designed with a different set of principles for billing and numbering, which makes it much easier for them to implement "caller pays".


          • There probably aren't enough 3-digit area codes left for all of the cellular phone subscribers. Are you going to memorize all of the new cellular-only area codes?

            Erm.. whats the point in having *area* codes for *mobile* phones.
            • Erm.. whats the point in having *area* codes for *mobile* phones.

              The USA is a big country, with many telephone companies. Area codes are needed for routing.

              Area codes are an integral part of the NANP [wikipedia.org] (North American Numbering Plan)

              • afaict with the current us system your call gets routed first to the area code your mobile number is in and then rerouted back accross the us to where your phone actually is. doesn't sound any more efficiant than just having a few codes that are specifically for mobiles.

      • "the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference."

        Close, the caller pays what they would pay if they called out of their area code which is why I agree with the other reply;

        "why not move the cell phone numbers to a separate area code then?"

        Happens enough when someone has a 'normal' line and a cell both in the same area code, one's a free local call but the other I have to pay for even if my 'normal' line bill says free calls in same area code. It would be n
      • But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number

        This is mad. How can you people put up with this situation? Here in .au mobiles start with 04 and you expect to pay more.

        Apparently in the USA I can call your mobile phone and you will have to pay for part of the call. Mad.

        • Sounds similar to the way GSM phones tend to work in Europe. I can take my Irish phone abroad (let's say to Spain) but if someone in Ireland calls me, they will pay for a regular call to a mobile but I pay the cost of the international connection.

          Strange though that you can have this situation without even having to leave the US.
          • Yes, but this is called "international roaming". Calls to an Eirecom (?) phone in Germany from a Telefonica landline in Spain result in:

            -The telefonica caller being charged internationally to call an Irish cell phone
            -You being charged the additional "roaming" fees to re-route the call. These can be quite hefty.

            I have a Swisscom phone (in Switzerland, duh), and we do not have incoming call charges for the entire area of Swisscom coverage (throughout Switzerland, duh.) I believe the same applies to fixed r

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @11:16AM (#13483224)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • For about $60 (including taxes)...

              $32 for me, as an example, with Sprint.

              ...about 500 minutes...

              About 120 minutes any time, and some 120+ minutes weekends. I never use that much anyway, so this is a good plan for me.

              because anyone calling you is going to have to pay through the nose to talk to you

              Yes, the US system wins here. Anyone can call me, but if I don't think it's worth using my minutes I will call him back on a landline, or just politely bring the call to an end. It is better this way bec

            • For about $60 (including taxes), a mobile phone subscription in the US generally includes about 500 minutes $60 = GBP32.50. So sandwiched in between 3's Text&Talk 600 and Video,Text&Talk 700 plans. The only real difference between US and UK pricing is that in the UK it is more expensive to phone a mobile from a landline.
      • That is crazy... In Australia home numbers start in 04, and are longer than normal numbers.... This means there are no area codes for mobiles, and everybody knows what they are calling! What idiot came up with the idea of not seperating mobile numbers? It just seems like logic... You call somebody who is in a remote area, you pay. So people on Verizon are actually paying to receive spam smses? Maybe Verizon/FCC need to be looking at their policies instead of suing spammers. I get most of my phone spam fr
        • Of course, in the US, people get screwed both ways. If I use a cell to make a call to a friend's cell, we both get charged. Even if it's the same cell company (unless your plan has "free mobile-to-mobile" minutes). Free incoming calls only makes sense, but due to the current infrastructure, it's not feasible.
          • Yes, cell phone prizing is a legalized scam set in system and protected legally. It's basically the phone companies pandoras box financially. Only in USA are companies valued higher than it's citizenz and there is virtually no limit for what they can do and get away with. Disgusting.
          • If I use a cell to make a call to a friend's cell, we both get charged. Even if it's the same cell company [..] Free incoming calls only makes sense, but due to the current infrastructure, it's not feasible.

            Sounds like you need to investigate modern offerings. Cingular/AT&T and Verizon have offered unlimited mobile-to-mobile minutes by default for years. And I've had one of Nextel's "free incoming" plan for years (600 peak outbound minutes for $63, all other calls and 2-way free) If you have AT&T/Ci
            • Did you intentionally cut out the part of my post that said (unless your plan has "free mobile-to-mobile" minutes) so that you could sound informative?

              Also, mobile to mobile only counts if you're calling someone in the same company, so in a town like mine (which is serviced by all three major networks) you only get about 1/3 of your calls "free".

              Anyway, I don't know about it being the default "for years". I just switched plans 1 year ago this month, and the base plan did not have mobile-to-mobile by defaul
          • Not entirely true. I have VZW and anyone I call on VZW is a free call no matter when I call or where they are in the USA. As far as having to pay for calls to another cell phone, yeah if you count using your minutes as paying then it is :). Or I could just wait till I'm on night and weekend mins and do my serious calling (longer than say ten minutes) then. :)
        • Not giving separate area codes to mobile phones in the US was a deliberate decision of the Federal Communications Commission. The purpose was to promote competition between providers. If there were separate area codes for new forms of telephone service, then the former Bell system landline carriers would have the benefit of the familiar area codes while the new companies would be stuck with strabge unfamiliar area codes. Or so the reasoning went.

      • Number portability. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Here in the USA we have number portability.
        You guys in other countries may not know that here one can transfer a cell phone number to a land line and a land line to a cell phone.

        This means you cannot have a simple "area code" for cell phones. It's much more complicated and liberated than your closed systems.

        Get over it.
        It's just a database issue, that's all.
        • So you're happy to keep paying for your spam, so you can keep the ability to transfer your cell phone to a landline at some unspecified point in the future, if you ever do.

          Every country has number portability, but *only* the US won't let you know that you're calling a mobile so you get slammed with the higher charges.

          • So you're happy to keep paying for your spam, so you can keep the ability to transfer your cell phone to a landline at some unspecified point in the future, if you ever do.

            No, we just want the unsolicited calls to stop completely. You should also be aware that there was at one time (and may still be in some areas) a budget calling plan (sometimes called message rate) for which both incoming and outgoing calls were charged either a per-connection or per-minute fee. That means that someone who struggled j

          • What higher charges?

            I don't pay any extra charges if I call a cellular phone from my landline phone.

        • Well, many countries that have special 'area codes' for mobiles also have number portability, but only for switching between different mobile providers. On the other hand, if you use standard area codes for your mobile phones, doesn't that mean you have to change your cell phone number when you are moving out of the area? If you have a separate numbering scheme for mobile phones, there is no need for that, because there is nothing that ties the number to a special region...

          You guys in other countries may no
          • i don't know if its still true but i remember reading that if you ported your number to bt cellnet (yes this was before the 02 demerger) other bt cellnet customers would still be charged the other mobile networks rate (which wasn't cheap especailly on pay as you go) to call you.

      • Where I live, you can tell if a number is for a mobile phone, but not which company issued it. Also, calls to phones on other companies cost more. To solve this, every time your mobile dials a mobile on another network, you hear a beep before the other phone starts ringing. It gives you a chance to cancel the call.

        It could work in this situation too.
      • But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number.

        In my area some landline prefixes are 234, 235, 265, 472, and 473. Cell phone prefixes are 258, 259, 262, 267, 277, and 377. You never see a landline with a cellphone prefix, or a cellphone with a landline prefix. The only grey area here might be someone who has call forwarding from a landline to a cellphone. If they can't tell the difference between dialing a 234 (landline) and 26
        • There is no obvious differnece. With number portability, constantly changing prefix assignments (including 4-digit prefixes/1000-number exchanges), and such, there is no reasonable way of being sure if the number you are calling is a landline, cellular phone, or something else. I have seen at least one case where the same exchange was either used for both cellular and landlines. The exchange was assigned to Sprint, and the person had Sprint landline and mobile service.

          Phone companies that do not use an ent

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile, etc, need to start charging sensibly

          Out of that list, only Verizon charge for an incoming SMS. They used to charge 2c a SMS, but have now upped it to 10c. No other cell phone company does this as far as I know.

      • That's why the cost is shared in the US: the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference.

        So I pay the cost as part of my bill because the spammers can't look up a list of cell exchanges?

  • Monetary damages (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:35AM (#13482059) Homepage
    How can they claim monetary damages? Presumably they got complaints from their clients - but their clients would have footed the support bill.

    • Re:Monetary damages (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:44AM (#13482088) Journal
      Punitive, not necessarily compensation.
       
    • "How can they claim monetary damages?"

      That's easy, customer not registered with or not on the don't bother calling me list for 31+ days reviews bill and sees unwanted charges or receives telemarketing calls and calls customer support claiming the calls were unsolicited telemarketing calls. Customer service rep agrees and credits customers account leaving part of the cost of the call unpaid and the company takes a loss. After a while all those refunds are going to add up and the company wants to recover the

      • Re:Monetary damages (Score:1, Informative)

        by rooster9 ( 906725 )
        "customer not registered with or not on the don't bother calling me list for 31+ days"... What are you talking about? The do-not-call list doesn't apply to cell phones... The FCC has lond held it illegal to spam cell phones.
        • It's #10 in the donotcall faq, cell phones can be reagistered and it's illegal to use automated dialers to call(spam) cell phones, but manual dialing is still allowed.
    • And they at least had to spend extra time on customer support, with probably fairly high per hour rates, to explain things to those customers, as well as costs for training the staff to handle this situation.

      Their network would have had x% extra usage which probably had their network resource staff asking for more hardware and other resources...

      They may have had to buy additional equipment to handle the unexpected volume of messages, etc...

  • Telemarketing is just another job (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:35AM (#13482064)
    There are many jobs that very few people are willing to do because the pay and working conditions are so poor. Telemarketing is one of those jobs. But, as they say, you can't have a world full of doctors without an army of janitors. Someone's got to do the work that no one wants to do. And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.

    If a telemarketing company is barred from using automated phone dialers to make calls, then they ought to be taken to task for it. I don't think any one will argue with that. But these companies typically have a couple dozen people on staff who can be trained to punch in phone numbers all day long, so it's not like they couldn't just do the same thing manually. In fact, I wish they would do it that way (it would get rid of that annoying split second of silence before you realize you've been caught).

    I'm lucky to have been able to avoid falling so low as to have to work one of those jobs, but there are many people who choose to do so. They aren't the ones who you ought to aim your rage at, but at the companies who hire them.
    • Uh...
      Telemarketing sucks, but nobody said the poor schmuck on the phone was getting rich. That schmuck's bosses are, and possibly the private company that's administering her/his prison is. These are the people we sue, and the people we dislike intensely.
      Telemarketers don't punch in phone numbers. That's too low-tech. computers can dial numbers. Computers can determine (more or less) if there's a human on the line. Then computers can determine which script reader has just finished a call, so as to maximize

    • I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers. The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones. Using these two technologies together means that you can simultaneously call thousands at the same time with no worker involvement, obvously a huge boon to SPIT companies but a pain in the arse for everyone else. This could have a greater impact than spam as spam doesn't disturb me when my computer is off or intrude wh

      • From the article, the "companies made hundreds of thousands of calls to cell phone customers using pre-recorded messages and auto-dialers in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as well as state laws".

        I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers.

        Also from the article: Under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations it is illegal for telemarketers to use automated diallers to call cell phone numbers
      • The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones

        Florida has had a state law regarding computerized autodialers that called random or sequenced numbers.

        Doesn't matter if it is cell phone or not.

    • Re:Telemarketing is just another job (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darkon ( 206829 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @06:22AM (#13482167)

      Telemarketing is just another job

      You're telling me that scamming vulnerable and trusting elderly folks [ftc.gov] into buying stuff they don't need or making dodgy investments is 'just another job'?
    • you're right. same goes for those in organized crime. they are simply trying to make a living. if not them, then the crime bosses would hire someone else. /sarcasm funny thing is, you're not even making them out to be like meter-maids, which is an argument with a case. you are making them out to be garbagemen or something that society can't do without. perhaps you need to be interrupted during dinner with sales pitches, but most people can do without this service. i think you need a little more reform.
    • And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.

      I don't see how this choice could ever arise, but I for one would take the meal and run.

    • Oh please. Somebody call the Waaaaaaaahmbulance!

      You can't compare janitors and telemarketers. Last I checked, janitors were not paid to annoy people at dinnertime, scam the elderly, and defraud mobile phone users.

      Telemarketers have no excuse. There is plenty of other low-wage work for when you are at the bottom of your rope, ethical work that doesn't involve the stuff that telemarketers do.
    • There are many jobs that very few people are willing to do because the pay and working conditions are so poor. Telemarketing is one of those jobs. But, as they say, you can't have a world full of doctors without an army of janitors. Someone's got to do the work that no one wants to do.

      No, I don't agree. Just because a company has made a job available does not mean that that job should exist.

      And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.

      I symp
    • I agree that it's not the fault of the schmuck on the other end of the line, but (primarily) the schmuck's boss. But it's silly to compare telemarketers and janitors, for the simple reason that we need janitors; we don't need telemarketers. Janitors perform a useful service by keeping things clean. Telemarketers are parasites.
    • The telemarketers calling me are getting increasing nasty. When I break into their spiel to politely but firmly say "please put me on your no-call list", I have gotten a couple of "Fuck you too"'s from them, and one called me back to threaten me. I think a lot of these callers think they are working toward a job as Mr Big in sales.

      There are plenty of other jobs out there. If you take a job making unsolicited calls, you are pond scum. While I don't think you should be strung up with piano wire from the neare
    • Spamming, too. And writing parking tickets. Or collecting taxes.

  • earlier this week (Score:4, Funny)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:36AM (#13482068)
    earlier this week ????

    We have a credability problem here.

  • Just a reality check for anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "Free SMS services" on the Internet: If you are offered something "free" on the Internet where you have to give away your mobile phone number then you can pretty much be sure that you WILL be paying a price in the form of spam. There is no thing as a free lunch...

  • I wish... (Score:5, Funny)

    by connah0047 ( 850585 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:47AM (#13482096)
    I wish I had to deal with phone spam instead of bad service. I signed a two year contract with Verizon and all I say on my phone all the time is, "Can you hear me now?" ...guess you can't sue them for false advertising.
    • I have Vodaphone in Germany and I get both Spam (usually just from vodaphone itself) and bad service (missed calls hat never appear on the phone).

  • And presumably (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @05:54AM (#13482111)
    In addition to seeking a cease and desist, they are also apparently seeking "monetary damages."

    Verizon will certainly redistribute the "monetary damages" to spammed customers, right? </sarcasm>
  • I got a phone call that was automated and in spanish about 2 weeks ago. I googled the number and came up with this page:

    http://www.payphone-directory.org/discussion/sub2. html [payphone-directory.org]

    Its not just Verizon customers. I can only hope that I (as a Sprint customer) receive some sort of "umbrella" benefit from this.
  • "... seeking 'monetary damages'"

    What kind of company seeks damages?

  • Auto Dialer exceptions (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:10AM (#13482257)

    Apparently
    "calls from companies with which you have an established business relationship" are allowed by automatic dialers...

    http://www.dmaconsumers.org/telephoneconsumerprote ctionact.html [dmaconsumers.org]

    • The part of i wonder about is how far can you stretch an "established business relationship". i bought something from you or the company you used to be or the a company you are related to years ago? how do i end this relationship? it's like getting calls from some drunken one-night-stand, her sisters, and her kids for rest of your life (no, u'r not the father).

  • Eh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by squoozer ( 730327 )

    Ok, I must be missing sonething here. I haven't RTA (sorry) but how can Verizon sue the spammers? If the spammers are paying to send the messages then they are at worst in breach of their contract with Verizon? If they aren't paying to send the messages then thats a whole different ball game and surely there must be some form of criminal activity going on. In which case the police should be involved.

    I hate spam in all it's forms but I can't help feeling this is like the mail service suing junk mail produc

    • The article headline is misleading. (if you can imagine that on /.!) The suits have nothing to do with SPAM or text messaging. Verizon customers were receiving telemarketing cold calls on their wireless handsets that played prerecorded sales pitches. This violates the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act in several ways. Both the FCC and some state laws provide legal recourse and a way to recover "punitive" damages for these calls. In addition, if the numbers were also registered with the federal "do

    • If the spammers are paying to send the messages then they are at worst in breach of their contract with Verizon? If they aren't paying to send the messages then thats a whole different ball game and surely there must be some form of criminal activity going on.

      While the article doesn't actually seem to involve cellphone spamming, it is fairly widespread. I don't know about Verizon, but many carriers allow you to receive SMS messages via email. The problem is that the email addresses are predictable, usually

  • I (loc: Taipei) regular receive the weirdest phonecalls on my mobile, people have tried to:
    • Borrow me money (several) ["do you have a credit problem", we at borrow 50% no questions asked"]
    • Tried get my address in return for free gifts ["now free handbook to Hong Kong Disneyland"]
    • Told me my son had been kidnapped, and that I should transfer money by bank (sidenote; thankfully I have no son)
    • I could earn lots of money by just going to a cash machine and entering a few numbers (various versions, "tax refund" appl

  • I like the spam ... don't get many calls (Score:4, Funny)

    by almound ( 552970 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:15AM (#13482433) Homepage
    That's what I bought a cell phone for, actually. Don't take it away!

  • Text-Spammer SMS.ac gets away with it. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Stitch_Surfs ( 895163 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @11:34AM (#13483352) Homepage

    Perhaps the worst violater of sending unsolicited SMS messages is the company SMS.ac out of San Diego, California.

    They've got a track record of trcking users into giving up their passwords to AOL and Hotmail accounts and then using the addresses those accounts contain to send messages to your friends and family that appear to have been sent by the unsuspecting victim. In one case Joi Ito was compromised and when he pubilshed his troubles on his blog they threatened him with legal action!

    A search on Technorati http://technorati.com/search/sms.ac%20complaints [technorati.com] will reveal an astonishing number of people that have been victimized by this company.

    If you haven't heard about this, you really should take a few minutes to check out the scam. The lure is free sms messages...they claim 5 per day, but what happens is shortly after you sign up you begin receiving "friend requests" not dozens, but four or five a day. This doesn't seem like much but if your premium sms charge is 0.50 and you get 5 per day times 30 days per month well...most people on /. can handle that math.

    I signed up to do an investigation for my blog and discovered some support for the complaint that these "friend requests" are company originated. Over the course of 3 months I had probably at least half a dozen requests by different screen names with the same photos as well as multiple requests by the same screen name.

    Now if there are the millions of members they claim, what are the odds of two people scraping the same images? And of course two different people with the same screen name is an impossibility.

    Adding insult to injury (I mean besides the couple hundred bucks I shelled out to verify this) the company actually had the audacity to post a "Cellular Bill of Rights" in my opinion, this is like the fox being left to guard the chickens.

    Of course unlike Voice Spammers that are paying to place and terminate their calls, the folks at SMS.ac obviously aren't paying much if anything. Complicit in this, though to what degree they're aware of the issue is Qpass http://qpass.com/ [qpass.com] and their m-Qube system for non-operator originated mobile wallet billing.

    Personally, I believe enough complaints to Qpass would put a dent in SMS.ac's evil ways. Believe me, they are evil. People lose their phones over this, and it's the one's that can't afford it...kids that didn't know any better who get hurt. Read the complaints for a while and you'll be as indignant as I was when I wrote about their Cellular Bill of Rights http://technorati.com/search/sms.ac%20complaints [technorati.com]

  • Not only is Verizon Wireless keen for both companies to cease their actions, it is also seeking "monetary damages".

    So, I wonder, who gets to pocket the money? I'd bet its not the customer, who's footing most of the bill for these calls and burning up precious minutes over them, not to mention having to put up with them. Verizon is just the carrier.

    Several months ago, we started receiving repeated text messages from some online casino. We never use this feature, so we never purchased an "unlimited mess
  • I wonder if any of us customers will be receiving any of that credit on our bills.... In all seriousness, Verizon has the worst customer service I have ever seen. Not only do they sometimes lie or "forget", but they also charge you extra in the hopes that you don't notice it in your bills. I suppose they're not the only company guilty of this, but the only reason why I stick with them is because they have the best wireless service in New York. But getting back to the point, I think we deserve a little c
  • Verizon is taking a page from Microsoft, which won compensation for itself for damages sustained by its customers. Which it didn't pass along to its customers. After it enabled those damages with its insecure systems.

    The US justice system lets corporations keep compensation for damages they help cause. The courts also award "punitive damages" from damagers to the damaged parties, on top of "compensation damages". Why? The damager should pay the punishment, but after the victim is already compensated for the

Slashdot Top Deals

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Close