TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative Premium Member join:2004-01-06 NYC Metro |
Tzale
Premium Member
2008-Jan-31 5:02 pm
T-MobileI don't even use text messages.
I think people should stop purchasing services without reading the terms first... Purchase a service, sign a contract and not know the companies policies?
-Tzale |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:02 pm · (locked) |
|
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT |
tcope
Premium Member
2008-Jan-31 5:10 pm
said by Tzale:I don't even use text messages. I think people should stop purchasing services without reading the terms first... Purchase a service, sign a contract and not know the companies policies? So in the TM contract is states that you cannot opt out of text message and any messages received, no matter the reason, will be charged? I think people should _think_ before they post crap they know nothing about. Again, the suit is that TM won't allow customers to stop the receipt of text messages and TM then charges for them. It's extortion. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:10 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
to Tzale
said by Tzale:I think people should stop purchasing services without reading the terms first... Purchase a service, sign a contract and not know the companies policies? -Tzale You're right about entering into a contract without first reading the terms, but stupidity notwithstanding, the fact that the customer then specifically called in to specifically ask T-Mobile to disable texting on his phone should be a no brainer. Since when can't features be disabled? I smell a class action lawsuit that will smack T-Mobile way down if it doesn't wise up soon. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:12 pm · (locked) |
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks
|
TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative Premium Member join:2004-01-06 NYC Metro |
to SilverSurfer1
Re: T-Mobilesaid by SilverSurfer1:said by Tzale:I think people should stop purchasing services without reading the terms first... Purchase a service, sign a contract and not know the companies policies? -Tzale You're right about entering into a contract without first reading the terms, but stupidity notwithstanding, the fact that the customer then specifically called in to specifically ask T-Mobile to disable texting on his phone should be a no brainer. Since when can't features be disabled? I smell a class action lawsuit that will smack T-Mobile way down if it doesn't wise up soon. No one forced them to signup for service with T-Mobile in the first place. They should have found out if it was possible at first... We need less government and lawsuits in this world.. Not more. Stupidity should not be rewarded. -Tzale |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:31 pm · (locked) |
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to Anon
quote: You should have asked T-Mobile prior to signing the contract. End of story
Normally I would agree with you, but in this case T-mobile is effectively forcing users to pay for incoming text messages without the ability to shut them off. If that person's cell phone nunber gets in the hands of a spammer it could get expensive. Regardless of contracts, there are certain ethical standards that companies should stand up to. Turning off texting is an option with most cariers, and T-mobile should be offering the same. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:50 pm · (locked) |
djrobx |
to Tzale
quote: We need less government and lawsuits in this world.. Not more. Stupidity should not be rewarded
True, but it shouldn't require a lawsuit to get T-mobile to do the right thing. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 5:51 pm · (locked) |
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
to tcope
It's a feature.... |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 6:01 pm · (locked) |
|
to djrobx
Uhm. Ok if you don't like the policy then don't buy their service. It's not like they are the only cell phone provider out there. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 6:09 pm · (locked) |
|
jt66 to Tzale
Anon
2008-Jan-31 6:13 pm
to Tzale
i agree with you people should read the contract before signing up. but tm should update it program to allow people to turn that service on and off. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 6:13 pm · (locked) |
|
Q97531 to Anon
Anon
2008-Jan-31 7:15 pm
to Anon
You sound like you are good with contracts, fast path me to the part that states text messaging can't be disabled... » www.t-mobile.com/Templat ··· int=trueNot saying it is or isn't there, just didn't find it quickly. Thanks for you help. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:15 pm · (locked) |
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT 1 edit |
tcope to Anon
Premium Member
2008-Jan-31 7:45 pm
to Anon
said by Tzale:You should have asked T-Mobile prior to signing the contract. End of story. I'm sick of people whining about things they DON'T KNOW SHIT about! Ask them what? What is everything you do and don't do? Get a clue, know what you're talking about and then post. You can't ask about something that is not disclosed. Read my post again if you can't figure that out. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:45 pm · (locked) |
tcope
1 recommendation |
to Tzale
said by Tzale:Not more. Stupidity should not be rewarded. You're finally right about something. A company should not get away with forcing charges against a customer for which the customer has no control and the company won't correct the problem that THEY created. THAT is stupidity. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:47 pm · (locked) |
tcope |
to Q97531
said by Q97531 :
You sound like you are good with contracts, fast path me to the part that states text messaging can't be disabled... That would require some actual knowledge about the subject. I don't think that is going to happen. It's a clear case of TM knowingly setting up a system in which their customers accrue charges for a service they did not ask for, did not want, and _don't_ want. TM is telling them they don't have a choice but to pay for the service they never asked for, don't want, and asked to have discontinued. I agree with djrobx, TM should have simply added the ability for customers to opt-out of text messages. Problem solved. Oh, but that would cut off TM's revenue from people text message spamming their customers. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:53 pm · (locked) |
S_engineer Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL |
to battleop
your right...buy the service that says "screw the customer", but please have your congressman lower corporate taxes! |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:53 pm · (locked) |
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT |
to battleop
said by battleop:Uhm. Ok if you don't like the policy then don't buy their service. It's not like they are the only cell phone provider out there. Just happens to be a little something called a contract. TM won't allow people to break it without a fine. Again, customers were not told they would be getting spam text messages and they were not told that they could not stop this "service" they never asked for. But to add to that, TM simply _won't_ turn off the service those people don't want. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 7:56 pm · (locked) |
|
So they hand you a contract but they cover up every thing but the signature line so you can't read it until after you have signed it? |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 8:23 pm · (locked) |
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT |
tcope
Premium Member
2008-Jan-31 9:28 pm
said by battleop:So they hand you a contract but they cover up every thing but the signature line so you can't read it until after you have signed it? Yup. Read my post... it points out that the contract says nothing about having to be charged for text messages you did not want nor not being able to have TM stop the abuse and charges of spam text messages. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be about the _contract saying NOTHING about this issue_. I hate to be abrasive in my posts but I can't see them as being anything but very clear. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 9:28 pm · (locked) |
TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative Premium Member join:2004-01-06 NYC Metro |
Tzale to tcope
Premium Member
2008-Jan-31 11:55 pm
to tcope
said by tcope:said by Tzale:Not more. Stupidity should not be rewarded. You're finally right about something. A company should not get away with forcing charges against a customer for which the customer has no control and the company won't correct the problem that THEY created. THAT is stupidity. Don't sign the contract.. Simple as that. |
actions · 2008-Jan-31 11:55 pm · (locked) |
Angerphile7 Premium Member join:2005-05-13 Los Angeles, CA |
to Tzale
And what's sad about this is... If they SPOKE to the Tech Support side of things... They can deactivate texts at the service side of things so they're completely blocked... Fine, it may not be in policy to do, but it's done. |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 1:32 am · (locked) |
|
to Tzale
said by Tzale:said by tcope:said by Tzale:Not more. Stupidity should not be rewarded. You're finally right about something. A company should not get away with forcing charges against a customer for which the customer has no control and the company won't correct the problem that THEY created. THAT is stupidity. Don't sign the contract.. Simple as that. So basically you're saying all people (yourself included) have always gotten exactly as they deserved, no more, no less-because if they sign a contract, well that's tough shit- even if the contract does not specifically define or it is added without the customer's knowledge? For example, what if Verizon adds "No Ron Paul supporters can use FIOS without paying 1000 dollars extra per month" to YOUR contract without your knowledge...that's okay by you because by your logic, you signed a contract, and therefore should STFU and stop whining and blah blah blippity blah. No? Didn't think so. You'd scream to high heaven, hire a lawyer if you didn't get your way, and whine your way out of the contract as well. Yeah. That's classic. |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 8:05 am · (locked) |
1 edit |
common_sense to battleop
Anon
2008-Feb-1 8:27 am
to battleop
You come out talking about not signing a contract if you do not want certain restriction of the service which may or may not be stated in the contract. Let me ask you, have you ever read every word of every contract, lease, agreement, procedure, tos that you have come across. If you have then please continue talking out of your *ss as you just lied to yourself. Next time give some thought to your comment instead of just saying.. don't like don't buy it. There are times when one has to make stand as all alternates to not buying are just as bad as buying it.
As for the suit, I have a personal and business contract with tmobile and on my personal account i have received on average 20-30 txt message from unknown people costing me 10-15 dollars additional a month. I had to get a basic txt addon for $5 in the end to deal with as I have no choice to stop tmobile from sending me messages. I am glad people are starting to fight the 4 services (no competition providers) we have. In Korea, I was able to get a very decent service with no stupid strings attached. Same in Japan while staying in both countries for short while. Can't we get some decent providers here.. oh wait I forget we are about free market (Market where everyone has to be greedy in order to create real competition) |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 8:27 am · (locked) |
|
GetOffMyLawn to Tzale
Anon
2008-Feb-1 9:35 am
to Tzale
You think this policy is spelled out in the contract? It likely just references a T&C document that is not furnished with the contract and you have to pull teeth to get a copy of. That is if they even "signed" the contract at all. Nowadays a verbal agreement to an contract available for view online counts as a "signature". |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 9:35 am · (locked) |
GetOffMyLawn |
GetOffMyLawn to Tzale
Anon
2008-Feb-1 9:35 am
to Tzale
That is not spelled out in the glorious contract you deliberately obtuse person! It's a policy, not a contract term. Policy != law. |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 9:35 am · (locked) |
|
to Tzale
On a wholly different subject, I too have T Mobile but use prepaid...and I don't get any of those text messages.
(shrugs) |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 9:53 am · (locked) |
TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative Premium Member join:2004-01-06 NYC Metro |
to satellite68
said by satellite68:So basically you're saying all people (yourself included) have always gotten exactly as they deserved, no more, no less-because if they sign a contract, well that's tough shit- even if the contract does not specifically define or it is added without the customer's knowledge? For example, what if Verizon adds "No Ron Paul supporters can use FIOS without paying 1000 dollars extra per month" to YOUR contract without your knowledge...that's okay by you because by your logic, you signed a contract, and therefore should STFU and stop whining and blah blah blippity blah. No? Didn't think so. You'd scream to high heaven, hire a lawyer if you didn't get your way, and whine your way out of the contract as well. Yeah. That's classic. Check out all of the details about the service prior to signing the contract. That includes general service quality and any policies that the company enforces that are not within the contract. -Tzale |
actions · 2008-Feb-1 7:58 pm · (locked) |
Tzale |
to tcope
said by tcope:said by battleop:Uhm. Ok if you don't like the policy then don't buy their service. It's not like they are the only cell phone provider out there. Just happens to be a little something called a contract. TM won't allow people to break it without a fine. Again, customers were not told they would be getting spam text messages and they were not told that they could not stop this "service" they never asked for. But to add to that, TM simply _won't_ turn off the service those people don't want. They should have picked a service that allowed them to turn off that feature... They could have researched this better prior to locking into the contract. Their fault.. Sorry... And usually I don't side with big corporations, but this time... Sorry.. -Tzale |
actions · 2008-Feb-2 12:24 am · (locked) |
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT 2 edits |
tcope
Premium Member
2008-Feb-2 12:31 am
said by Tzale:said by tcope:said by battleop:Uhm. Ok if you don't like the policy then don't buy their service. It's not like they are the only cell phone provider out there. Just happens to be a little something called a contract. TM won't allow people to break it without a fine. Again, customers were not told they would be getting spam text messages and they were not told that they could not stop this "service" they never asked for. But to add to that, TM simply _won't_ turn off the service those people don't want. They should have picked a service that allowed them to turn off that feature... They could have researched this better prior to locking into the contract. Their fault.. Sorry... And usually I don't side with big corporations, but this time... Sorry. So your first thought was that they should have read the contract. When your error was pointed out you stated that they should go to another provider. When again your error was pointed out your response now is that customers should have some how thought of the idea that this odd situation could happen at some point and then searched for an answer (again, to a problem that did not yet exist). {inappropriate remark removed and apology inserted} . About the stupidest things I've ever seen posted. 'course, you could side step the real issue again and change your reasoning. |
actions · 2008-Feb-2 12:31 am · (locked) |
TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative Premium Member join:2004-01-06 NYC Metro |
Tzale
Premium Member
2008-Feb-2 5:14 am
said by tcope:So your first thought was that they should have read the contract. When your error was pointed out you stated that they should go to another provider. When again your error was pointed out your response now is that customers should have some how thought of the idea that this odd situation could happen at some point and then searched for an answer (again, to a problem that did not yet exist). Does your head come out of your butt at any time? About the stupidest things I've ever seen posted. 'course, you could side step the real issue again and change your reasoning. I've never changed my views.. Simple.. Read the contract, ask whatever questions you have and make a decision... You're the one with serious problems... You didn't prove me wrong at all.. Your posts make no sense. |
actions · 2008-Feb-2 5:14 am · (locked) |
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks
|