"IN" calling revisited

castellan wrote:
> On 2005-09-12, Lena <lenagainster.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> and see how misleading it is before spouting off your
>> comments about how "simple, clear and not at all
>> difficlut to understand". Try poking in a VZW number
>> that you know does NOT have "IN" calling, and see what
>> happens. The website will tell you they are IN. They
>> may be IN, but they do not have "IN" calling. That is
>> the issue and that is why the webpage is faulty.
>>
>
> Exactly. My line doesn't have IN, because i got it a few
> years ago. Its not on my statement either, however this
> webpage says I've got it.
>
> Thats nice if someone ELSE has IN and is calling me, but
> its certainly not telling me the truth when it says *I*
> have IN

"Exactly". If I plug in your number it will say that you are "IN".
YOUR NUMBER IS A VZW MOBILE NUMBER. Is that so
hard to understand? I actually know what my plan provides
(it seems maybe you do to?). I have unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile
calling. They renamed it on my plan to IN Calling since that's
the same thing. That means I can call anyone who is a VZW
mobile number for free. I can call you for free. The website
told me that.

THE WEBSITE DOES NOT TELL YOU IF *YOU* HAVE "IN".
VZW made the huge mistake of thinking that everyone knows
what they have on their plan. Actually I think they acknowledged
this fact with ACII. No roaming because people just couldn't
figure out what that meant.

How do you people manage to get your cars out of the driveway
in the mornings?

-Quick

Lena wrote:

> What is going to happen when a customer who has used that website,
> plucks their own number in and sees that they are *IN*, thinks they now
> have free "IN" calling, burns up 10000 minutes and gets a bill for $450
> in overages?

I would say they have an extreme lack of common sense. *I* certainly
knew that unless I specifically saw that my calling plan had unlimited
"IN" capability, then I should expect to be billed airtime for all
calls. And I do consider myself to be a reasonable person.

ANd for the record my plan does have "IN" calling, and the welcome
documentation I received on signup very clearly spelled this out.

Verizon Wireless also advertises EV-DO data capability, yet not all
phones are equipped to interface with it. Should we also assume that
someone out there is going to foolishly believe that they can shove a
cable into their 15-year-old bag phone, hook the other end to their
computer and voila, they have wireless broadband internet?



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> It says:
>
> "You won't use up your minutes or messaging allowance with Unlimited IN
> Calling"
>
> They even capitalize it, so that you know that "Unlimited IN Calling" is
> a feature.

Also, I should point out that SaleMark["sm"] notation is given to the
"Unlimited IN Calling" wording, indicating that it is a special feature
or service.

> They are NOT responsible for you knowing whether your contract, or any
> contract, includes that feature. That's up to you. It's also up to the
> other person to manage HIS OWN calls and minutes.

Agreed. Even if someone assumes that they have unlimited IN, a
reasonable person would probably still check their minutes to track
their usage of non-IN airtime, IF they had any concern at all about
their usage (and unless they're quite rich, a reasonable person WOULD
want to at least know what their usage is). This usage tally is readily
available, and would probably raise some alarm bells when it becomes
inordinately higher than the person expected it to be.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Quick wrote:

>>ANd for the record my plan does have "IN" calling, and
>>the welcome documentation I received on signup very
>>clearly spelled this out.
>
>
> AND you read the documentation you received?...


The welcome letter is a one-page document, and the plan details are in
nice bold print, including the contract expiration date. Maybe you
forgot to take your ritalin and can't read that far without losing interest?


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Quick wrote:
>
>>> ANd for the record my plan does have "IN" calling, and
>>> the welcome documentation I received on signup very
>>> clearly spelled this out.
>>
>>
>> AND you read the documentation you received?...
>
>
> The welcome letter is a one-page document, and the plan
> details are in
> nice bold print, including the contract expiration date.
> Maybe you
> forgot to take your ritalin and can't read that far
> without losing interest?

Well... actually I am familiar with all the details of my
plan. My tongue-in-cheek point was that doen't seem
to be the norm. I'm not sure if that correlates to
"reasonable". Many here seem to claim that.

-Quick

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:01:48 GMT, castellan <castellan.DeleteThis@dev.null> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Gross Receipts Surchg $.96

HUH???!! Isn't that the definition of income tax?

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"It's a shame, this male tendency toward aggression, which has caused so
many horrible problems, such as war and ice hockey." - Dave Barry

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:44:14 GMT, "Quick" <quick7135-news DeleteThis @NOSPAMyahoo.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>castellan wrote:
>> On 2005-09-12, Lena <lenagainster DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and see how misleading it is before spouting off your
>>> comments about how "simple, clear and not at all
>>> difficlut to understand". Try poking in a VZW number
>>> that you know does NOT have "IN" calling, and see what
>>> happens. The website will tell you they are IN. They
>>> may be IN, but they do not have "IN" calling. That is
>>> the issue and that is why the webpage is faulty.
>>
>> Exactly. My line doesn't have IN, because i got it a few
>> years ago. Its not on my statement either, however this
>> webpage says I've got it.
>>
>> Thats nice if someone ELSE has IN and is calling me, but
>> its certainly not telling me the truth when it says *I*
>> have IN
>
>"Exactly". If I plug in your number it will say that you are "IN".
>YOUR NUMBER IS A VZW MOBILE NUMBER. Is that so
>hard to understand? I actually know what my plan provides
>(it seems maybe you do to?). I have unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile
>calling. They renamed it on my plan to IN Calling since that's
>the same thing. That means I can call anyone who is a VZW
>mobile number for free. I can call you for free. The website
>told me that.

That pair of web pages will only be useful to you if A: you know if you
have IN calling, and B: you understand what IN is. On its own, it is very
ambiguous.

It would be much clearer if it said something like "If you have IN, calls
to numbers that are IN won't use up your minutes if you are within the
Americas Choice[sm] calling area. If you have the new additional IN
Messaging, messages to numbers that are IN won't use up your messaging
allowance if you are within the National Enhanced Services area."

>THE WEBSITE DOES NOT TELL YOU IF *YOU* HAVE "IN".
>VZW made the huge mistake of thinking that everyone knows
>what they have on their plan. Actually I think they acknowledged
>this fact with ACII. No roaming because people just couldn't
>figure out what that meant.

People could understand it better if VZW explained it in plain English
instead of a combination of legalese and marketing-speak. I still might not
understand it properly if I hadn't come to this group and read
comprehensible explanations of it all.

>How do you people manage to get your cars out of the driveway
>in the mornings?

That's a whole lot easier to do than read a VZW promotional pamphlet or web
page.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Fewer acts of rudeness are committed in Iowa in an entire year than during
a single morning in any given New York City subway car." - Dave Barry