Zehan's Posts

I agree with you that Verizon, AT&T, and the others don't want to see a government run network because it would put them out of business; that was one of the points I made in my earlier post. Can you blame them though? What do you expect them to do? "Sure! Go ahead and create your cheap network! Put us out of business, we don't mind!" Surely you can see where they're coming from. It's a bad idea to compare what Verizon is doing to what healthcare/pharmaceutical providers are doing. Wireless service in NOT A NECESSITY. HEALTH CARE IS ABSOLUTELY A NECESSITY and should be provided to everyone for free (other than the tax cost). Comparing wireless to health care is hardly "apples to apples" and should not even factor in to this discussion.   Millenicom might use the same towers, but it's a different network; they likely use a different receiver on the same tower. It's the same with wireless carriers; they'll use the same tower with both of their receivers on it to save money from builiding their own or if there is no space to build one, and pay the tower's owner for the privilege. It's called a roaming network. Just because AT&T and Verizon might share a tower, the networks are different and therefore have different limits. It's the same with Millenicom, which means they may be able to charge less for more data because they're running a smaller network, customer base, or both, and so they don't have to worry as much about bandwidth. This is all speculation, though.   My point is that Millenicom might have different rates that work for you (congratulations) but that doesn't mean anything other than they're trying to beat their competition by offering unlimited data for the same price. I'm willing to bet that if their network was as large as Verizon's we'd see a cap in their usage also.   No one is trying to argue that $59.99 for internet service is a great deal (we'd all like to have it cheaper), I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether you think it's fair or not because it's not Verizon's responsibility to be fair, as Verizon is not a utility; "fair" would only happen if Verizon sold the product to you at the same cost they paid to provide it, without making any profit. Anyway, all that matters is you knew the terms when you signed up. If you don't like them anymore, cancel. Will you have to go without? Maybe.   Finally, 1% is a GROSS exaggeration of the people who are fine with 5GB of service. Remember, for every customer that complains, there are at least 50 more that are happy with their service, and therefore don't say anything. The few people who complain on these forums (including you) are hardly representative of the millions of customers Verizon services that are satisfied. Besides, the people that think the limit is too little are usually using the service in a way it was never intended to be used, like for heavy downloading, or as their primary ISP. It's meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL service, not your primary provider. If it's your only option, you'll just have to limit your usage or pay the overage cost.

You keep complaining that Verizon is doing all of this just to make money, and we keep telling you YES! YOU'RE RIGHT! AND THAT'S NOT THE POINT! It's not illegal for Verizon to do this. They're in it for the money, and they're going to do whatever they can to protect that revenue. Highway robbery? Please. Only if the robber were to say "We're going to take this, okay?" and you said "Sure! Where do I sign?" You have a choice whether or not to buy, even if Verizon is your only choice of a service provider. If you don't agree with the pricing, STOP COMPLAINING AND CANCEL. That's the only way to send a clear message to Verizon.   Wireless services are not a right or a utility, they're a SERVICE. Verizon doesn't owe you anything, including a price drop, and the longer you rant about how terrible the pricing model is while simultaneously paying your bill each month, the more you're going to look like a hypocrite.   {please keep your posts courteous}

You'd be surprised how much the top contrubutors answer the same questions, and usually without reminding the OP about the search function. SuzyQ uses macros to answer these questions so she doesn't have to type them over and over again. I myself have never flamed an OP just for asking an answered question, and agree that it's wrong to do so. In that case it's better to just say nothing at all.   Usually what people see as flaming or trolling is really just that poster's opinion. Some people get offended when someone speaks up with an opposing view, so they accuse the dissenting poster of flaming, trolling, or (my favorite) being an "undercover" Verizon employee. They call them rude, or fanboys, or whatever else they can say to discredit them without actually providing a thought out argument. Personally I try to be polite most of the time, and my posts are usually more helpful than not.   There ARE,however, some situations where some of us top posters just can't resist the need to make fun of a poster who is acting particularly obnoxious or bull-headed. These are the ones who usually post one or two messages which are more often than not just a rant about how terrible Verizon is and how they were cheated, stolen from, or lied to. On rare occasions I actually agree with some of these posters, but most of the time they're so blatantly wrong that I and a few others can't resist teasing them a little. Call it rude if you want but when you read/answer the same questions day after day, you have to find your fun somewhere.

All this article says to me is that Uncle Sam wants to give money to the carriers to expand their rural networks, and the carriers are declining because they don't want to have to answer to the government when making their private business decisions. Government has no place in private business (or at least it shouldn't) and the carriers are IMHO right for declining government money.   If the government wants to provide wireless services to the public then more power to them, but they should do it on their own. They should build their own network rather than throw money at the carriers and tell them how to run theirs. I've said elsewhere that I think a tax-funded wireless network operated as a city utility would be a good idea, but I think it's wrong to force private companies to provide it.   Even so, if Verizon wants to oppose any legislation that would create a large, cheap, wireless network they are perfectly within their rights to do so. After all, such a network could put them out of business or at least lose them a ton of money. A public network would certainly show that carriers don't operate based on cost, but rather on what the market would bear (Jim would be proud of me right now), and while nothing is wrong with this free enterprise model it's just not smart business to advertise that you're selling your services for triple what the cost is to maintain them.   If you really want to complain that the prices are unfair because Verizon doesn't spend that much to provide you service, then you might as well complain about EVERYTHING else you buy. You really think basketball shoes cost $100 dollars to make? Try a few cents. How about designer purses or shoes? Same story. This applies to almost everything you buy, from bottled water to televisions, clothing to vehicles, etc. How come nobody complains about those companies "ripping people off?"

If you're trying to get someone to agree that the entire pricing structure for wireless services is designed only to generate revenue, then you're right. The plans cost more than is necessary, overage fees are there SOLELY to cost the customer more money, and caps only serve to create those overages.   Congratulations, you've uncovered the purpose of Verizon Wireless: to MAKE MONEY. Now all you have to do is decide whether the service they provide is worth the cost.

  willanaya wrote: ever notice that the people who are objecting to the data plan are One and Done posters?   me thinks there is a troll on the prowl.   hey mod, close this thread please   Aww c'mon... It's fun to pick on trolls!  

  critterpainter wrote: I think everyone is missing the TRUE rip-off.  The Droids are a great computer...But SUCK as a phone. The cheapest phone out there performs more tricks than the phone on the Droid.  Can I get just the data plan for the droid and re-activate my old razor as a phone and drop the phone service on the droid??   All ANY competitor has to do is show a video if the gyrations one has to go through to call from a sleeping droid while driving.....its NOT SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!! My old razor may not tell me where the nearest gas station is but I didn't have to do a cop check to place a call!!!   Bill     Um....ever think of not making a call while driving period? It's illegal in a lot of places now....for a REASON.   I can't believe you actually argued that the Droid sucks as a phone because it's not easy to use while driving, and therefore is unsafe. Wow.   Heeeeere's your sign.

Okay...no. Caps are in place to discourage overuse of the data network much like what happened with AT&T and the iPhone. Verizon is NOT a monopoly, though they may be the only wireless provider in certain areas. The same can be said about all carriers. They are NOT taking us backwards; when most of the world (including AT&T and T-Mobile) is running on a dated, limited GSM network, Verizon (and some other countries as well) is pushing CDMA which has better quality, network capacity, and reliability. I'd say those are steps forward, not backward. Also, the last time I checked I paid taxes to the GOVERNMENT, not Verizon Wireless. Verizon can't spend your tax money; not really sure where you got that from... Finally, city users get preference because THERE ARE MORE OF THEM. Verizon isn't going to waste money supplying a few hundred people with service when they could get more money by supplying hundreds of thousands or even millions of people for the same cost. They can then take that money and spend it on less lucrative rural ventures. And who is to say urban dwellers have less need for wireless internet? That's just an assumption whether it's true or not, and anyway it's irrelevant. I'm not saying the country is a bad place to be (I grew up there), but I will say that when you CHOOSE to live there you ought to understand that there are certain services that may not be available to you, and it is not the responsibility of Verizon or any other provider to cater to your specific needs. It would be nice if they did, but one can hardly blame them for not wanting to lose money doing it.

I really wish some people would actually do some research into why wireless companies impose a cap on data usage instead of just chalking it up to "greed." And for those in rural areas, well, Verizon didn't make you live there and it's NOT Verizon's responsibility to ensure you have cheap, unlimited internet services. Quit complaining.