Unfair practice

My problem seems to be all too familiar on here, I purchased a Iphone 4 cell phone on 09/15/11, I ordered it over the phone with a very professional representative and I had been told that I had the 30 day worry free to return my phone to exchange or cancel my new 2 year agreement. When I called regarding a technical issue the automated messages said :reserve your I phone As now. When I asked the representative about this she said IM sorry you are past you 14 day guarantee! Much to my surprise I was offered bogus info when I originally purchased the phone. Even after speaking with managers they absolutely were not going to help me. I was then told the new phone was really not much different than the one I had. That 10/12/11 I would get an email to download the newest software. Well much to my surprise that when I visited apple yesterday I could not get the new app SIRI, I have been lied to so much that I have no fight in me anymore! It does not seem to matter that I have been with them since before 1995, So people really beware of what you are being told, and remember that all the calls that you have with them are taped.I am now waiting for my original taped conversation to be observed, its really too bad that the burden of the truth is on the customers. I have always been a fan of Verizon, Always have complemented their customer service, they WERE the best out there..Not anymore

I agree with you. I've been with Verizon since '98 and their customer service was way better. They will always tell you the phone you got is the same as the one before and they never follow up on what they tell you which is why we [customers] are always surprised. However, back in the '90s Verizon was still competing for customer attention, now that they're the best they think it's okay to just be snobs.
I hope everything works out! I'm routing for you...

Similar Messages

T-mobile unfair practice

I am stationed with military in Spain and was in United States for a week and needed to get an unlocked phone for use overseas, which I was paying full price $650.
I went to to T-Mobile store since I needed to purchase a prepaid SIM for the week. The sales representative told me if I bought the phone from the store versus going to Apple store that they would set up the phone and have it ready for me while I was in the United States and it would be unlocked for when I left to go to Spain.
I get back to Spain and the phone is not unlocked for overseas. I contact T-Mobile customer service and they will not not unlock the phone unless I pay them more money. Now I find out the phone might have some issues here in Spain with the local service providers, since it the model is 5C - A1532 LTE.
Also since I am not in United States I can not return the phone and repurchase it through Apple.
Is there any action I can take on this?

chattphotos wrote:
Talk to T-mobile, unlocking is free, never requires a payment for such.
Not necessarily. T-Moble, like all carriers, has specific criteria for unlocking which if unmet can require additional payment. See this:
http://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-1588

Unfair practices

I saw the online ad of the $79 triple bundle deal. I did not see anything that indicated that I had to sign up online for that deal. I called and told them I was interested in the $79 deal. I was not told that I had to sign up online for that deal. By not indicating that on the web page or telling people when they inquire you are forcing the public to make assumptions that some people would not make.
So because I did not sign up on line I am being charged $89.99. I called and protested to a supervisor but I was told that she could not change the price.
When I signed up I was told I would receive a free tablet. After I signed up I received an email letting me know that I would get a free tablet but only if I sign up for a 2-year contract with wireless. I was not told that before hand.
When they asked me to provide my cell number I told them not to call me on my cell. I am out of work and living off my savings and I pay for the calls I make and receive. They called me several times on my cell therefore using up my phone minutes. I told the superviceor, Karen, and she said they called my cell because I didn't have a land line. I did have a land line that was working fine. They were calling to set up instillation of fios. In the meantime I still had Comcast. They could have called on the landline that is why I told them NOT to call my cell.
I think this is a sneaky and underhanded way to sign people up for your service. I really, really thought Verizon was a better company than Comcast. Apparently I was wrong about that. Now I have this huge bill (biggger than I thought according to the estimation bill I recieved) including activation fee. And I'm also out the minutes for my cell phone. I am so sick and so upset about this. I feel so helpless when dealing with these companies. It seems the customer doesn't come first anymore, only profit does. That is such a shame.

I received the reply from Version and the reply basically told me what I already knew. Not much help there.
When I called up Comcast for an offer on their website I was immediately told that was an online offer only. Why didn’t Verizon Fios afford me the same courtesy?
Whenever I called Comcast and was unhappy they immediately tried to make me happy by offering me some sort of token of appreciation. I don’t see that with Verizon Fios. Don’t you appreciate your customers?
I received TNT, animal planet, TVLand, TLC on Comcast’s basic plan. Not so on Verizon Fios. Why doesn’t Fios offer these channels in their basic package?

Spending limit - what a joke!

I have been a loyal customer for 2.5 years with a bill that is almost $500 per month for 8 lines on Edge plus one line that has completed a 2-year contract. That means I have paid verizon between 12,000 and 15,000 dollars on time every time. I have an excellent credit rating, and now they tell me there is a spending limit.
They let me add 8 Edge lines to my plan. I called Verizon direct to see about upgrading, and they told me that me and my husband could both upgrade if we paid 98.88 per phone.
We did that, but now tell me I cannot upgrade because there is a "hard cap" of $4,000 spending limit on the Edge program (which they extended to $5,000 to sell me two additional lines in September, but it appears to be back down to $4,000 now that I want to upgrade). They had no problem taking my money for the "Edge Up" upgrade payment. One phone was upgraded just fine, but they now say I need to put down a $300 down payment on the second phone we want to upgrade. I have talked to multiple people at Verizon because it makes no sense. I am not adding another line. I am simply trying to trade phones of equal value. If I am going to do that, I will buy one outright for $300 and add it to my plan with no contract.
Where does it say that there is an equipment cap of $4,000, and how do they think you could every have 9 or 10 (max) phones with equipment prices less than $4,000? Shouldn't that limit be associated with the number of lines on the plan or the creditworthiness of the customer rather than a "hard cap"?
I think it is unfair practice to increase it to make the initial sale, but decrease it, so they do not have to fulfill their end of the contract. Also, if they have decreased my spending limit, they did it without notifying me, and they had no reason to do so.
I guess they do not want or need my $6,000 per year. Buyer beware on Edge. It is not what they say or advertise. I was a huge fan until I tried to actually use it.

Failed to follow sane and safe upgrading practices and don't have either a bootable backup/clone or Time Machine backup of your previous Lion installation?
Tsk, tsk.
See these for more details:
http://www.macmaps.com/upgradefaq.html
http://www.macmaps.com/backup.html
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/installswupdates.html
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/backuprecovery.html

BT email address and Joomla! settings

Hi all,
please help as nothing I've tried seems to work. I've built a site in Joomla! and have now created a form. I should be receiving emails from anyone filling out the form but am not and despite filling in all permutations I can think of I can't seem to get this to work. The form itself is completing as I can go to the admin end of the site and manually check, but it really should be sending the emails too!
Has anyone used Joomla with Bt's settings and if so what have you put in the following fields: (PS this is in the global config section - server - Mail Settings...
Mail Tab:
Mailer: Select the method that is to be used to send e-mails from the web site. Select from the choices in the drop down list:
PHP mail function
Sendmail
SMTP Server
Mail From: Enter the e-mail address that will appear on all e-mails sent out by the web site. For example [email protected]
From Name: Enter the name that will appear in the From field on all e-mails sent out by the web site. For example: The Admin Team; The Web Master;
Sendmail Path: This field displays the path to the Sendmail program on the host. This field is only used if the Mailer field is set to Sendmail and the mail server is running the Sendmail program.
SMTP Auth: Select Yes if SMTP Authentication is required by the host mail server. This field is only used if the Mailer field is set to SMTP Server.
SMTP User: If SMTP Authentication is required by the host mail server, enter the Username for the account. This field is only used if the Mailer field is set to SMTP Server and the SMTP Auth field is set to Yes.
SMTP Pass: If SMTP Authentication is required by the host mail server, enter the Password for the account. This field is only used if the Mailer field is set to SMTP Server and the SMTP Auth field is set to Yes.
any help would be greatly appreciated!

fungalpis wrote:
Is it possible to do this with the new BT email service?
Someone on the BT Residential Customer Support Community Forum managed to subscribe to a premium BT email service, keep their existing btinternet.com address for a small fee, and then migrate to a different ISP.
Clearly, ISPs will discourage a lot their customers from migrating if they cannot keep their existing email addresses.
Might that also be seen as some form of unfair practice, in terms of restricting competition?
Hi.
The Premium email service is not ceasing, otherwise "they" wouldn't be informing those on old legacy payg or basic email to either move the address to their BT broadband account (if relevant) or pay 1.60 to keep the address.
This service has been around for years.
Not sure your last comments are relevant - since it's up to the user to move as they wish. Obviously an ISP email tie-in is, however, relevant - but this doesn't stop BTinternet users from keeping their address if they move elsewhere (for that fee). I don't know if other ISPs have this sort of facility.
If people chop & change frequently, then it would make sense to only use a non ISP email address, e.g. their own domain, gmail, hotmail, (even Yahoo) if they so wish.
http://www.andyweb.co.uk/shortcuts
http://www.andyweb.co.uk/pictures

DW CS won't start

DW CS hung on shutdown. On restart it hung on a "white screen
of death". I deleted the configuration folders. Repaired from
control panel>add/remove program. It worked once, but has hung
again. This time on Repair from control panel>add/remove program
after deleting config folder all I get is the "white screen of
death".
Any ideas how to fix this?

Before ranting off, let's review the facts, shall we? Now you didn't tell us anything useful, but let's see: After Effects 7 = 2006, AI CS = 2006. Did at that point Windows 7, Windows Vista or Mac OSX 10.6.x even exist? Absolutely not! So why do you even assume, those legacy apps would run without issues on these modern operating systems, when exactly the changed architectures of those OSs work against it by introducing additional security and compatibility features? If any of that applies to your situation, then you are blaming the wrong ones. Trying to instal lany of that e.g. on a new W7 machione is not going to yield the result you have on mind. AE 7 is not even compatible with Vista, anything before CS4 is not compatible with W7 due to issues with Quicktime, Windows Media and general CoDec and file handling, which is even duely noted on the Adobe knowledge base. The same may be true for AI CS due to dependencies on hardware drivers for tablets and printers, but some people have gotten it to install. Still, under any circumstances, this is experimental and success hugely depends on teh specific setup. In any case, you will require to run as admin at any time. The rest is nonsense and beside the point - Adobe is in it for the money and software developers want to get paid, too. So how is it in any way an "unfair practice", if they are trying to sell you newer versions of their software, when the old ones for the aforementioned hard technical reasons won't run and effort had to be invested to make it compatible again? You're not saying that you buy a car once and then expect the manufacturer to fix it for you free of charge for the rest of your life, are you? Why should that be any different with software?
Mylenium

Auction Bidiots

The Verizon Smart Rewards Auctions are a total joke, if not an outright scam. I've tried a number of times and the same thing keeps happening whether it's something I'm bidding on or just keeping an eye on. Nor does it matter if it's the cheapest garbage that no one in their right mind would want, something really nice, or if there's 100's of one particular item. In the last few minutes of an auction it 's like all of a sudden people show up to bid going from under 50 to as many as 200-300 bidders, bidding goes insane, points go from under 10,000 up to 80k-90k, and often over 100,000 points for such ridiculous items like the never ending supply of the $25 Verizon wireless gift card. Never mind that the bid button goes dead in the last few seconds. What is the point of an auction where it's impossible to compete fairly? If by some miracle you win an item, who gets the points? Where or who do they go to? They must be of some value to someone if verizon has to resort to allow such nonsense just to let someone win something like a lousy $25 under gift card for 80k-90k points that has very limited use in one specific place.
This is the exact same thing that happened on E-bay in their first couple of years. Often a seller would have friends bid on an item to artificially drive the price up and create false interest. Other times people would bid on an item with no intention of completing the deal. All too often people would wait until the last few seconds and do a berserker bid. Then there were always the jerks that used bot-ware to make sure no matter what they won at any cost. They were called 'Bidiots'. E-bay pretty much put a stop to those kinds of scummy practices. Verizon wireless needs to do the same and stop this deceptive, unethical, and unfair practice and give everyone a fair and level playing field.

For what it's worth, I was starting to think the same thing after losing a handful of auctions today, the first I've tried by the way. Just a few minutes ago I won a restaurants.com gift card. So....while it seems like ********, it apparently is not.

BT Privacy

My first post....hello all!
Here's a good one I've just come across. I want to switch off the BT Privacy (TPS + Caller Display) and the only way I appear to be able to do this is to bring my calls back to BT and that is not something I'm prepared to do.
There is nothing in any T&C that indicate this and I consider it to be a bit of an "unfair practice"!
I do not make calls on my BT line, my calls and broadband are provided by an alternative provider that not only am I 100% happy with, the calls + broadband are cheaper than BT!

I believe that to take it off your account you would just need to contact the service dept on 0800 800 150 (or 150 from a bt line)
The point you make about being charged is only when you have the facility, as the T&C say.
"customers who do not make some chargeable calls with BT will be charged for BT Caller Display. Customers with other call providers can still benefit from BT Caller Display at no extra cost if the following calls are made. Customers who are billed monthly must make at least two chargeable calls with BT in that month, other wise BT reserves the right to charge £2.59 a month for BT Caller Display.
it goes on to say
"Alternatively, if you'd like to make one-off calls that are chargeable to your BT bill then simply dial the numbers 1280 before you dial the phone number you wish to call"
So yes caller display is free providing you make a minimum of 2 calls, so to me 2 calls at maybe 10p a call therefore caller display would be in your situation 20p a month.
(If I have helped you in any way to say "Thank You" please click on the star next to the message. Thank You)
If I have solved your Issue please click the "Mark as accepted solution" button.

Apple discarded iphone 3g by stop upgrading

, I was a great apple product fan. But the way Apple stop the compaitibilty of iphone 3G and all other older iphone firmware support, this clearly means you discard your old phone and buy the iphone 5.
Whatsapp is not working, facebook is not working becasue of compatibility issue
This is a wrong marketing and an unfair practice. What will happen when apple launch iphone 6 and discard iphone 5, then users have to buy another phone, with in few months.
Now a days people are enjoying iphone 5 , but what will happen after apple will discard this phone also, as the practice shows Apple will do that. Even with new phone the charger is different, which you cannot use on any iphone , this is a wrong practice, and like me people will leave apple, I still like apple products, but not its policy , and will not submit myself to its unfair policies.... I feel like moving to some other product ... I wish Apple will do something to it

Your complaint should be directed to the developers of facebook and whatsapp
who chose to discontinue support for older versions of iOS.
You should express your displeasure to those developers - Apple did not
force them to stop supporting previous versions of iOS. The developers made
that choice - probably to ease the maintenance of their code base. Regardless
of why the decision was made, it was the decision of the developer and not
Apple.

Are non-Infinity customers being discriminated aga...

I believe this to be worthy of further investigation.
My problem. we've been BT customers for some 5 years. We live in Salcombe South Devon and will probably not see Infinity for some considerable years yet.
We are well out of our BT contract. We also have Freesat HD via a Humax Freesat Twin receiver PVR so lots of viewing choice.
We signed up for BT Vision (Now listed as Unlimited TV) including BT (Unlimited Anytime Plan with line rental) and Unlimited Broadband. So the full package you might say.
We currently pay a total of £55.20 for this and have just received a posted invitation flyer to take Netflix, which reads so confusingly and ambiguos I needed to call the helpline # 0800 9171740 primarily to have the offer explained and to explore my options.
The old BT Vision box died around 14 months ago and it was suggested that I paid £50 for the latest BT YouViuew box that happens to be a quality Humax HDD PVR. This is the current equipment we use.
Like most I am keen to reduce costs where possible and wanted to check the Unlimited TV package as we hardly ever watch any Movies or TV Box sets, Kids or Music these days other than the catch-up TV channels that are provided through the blue BT button on the remote control.
I was advised by BT that I could take TV Essebtial for £2 per month, dropping the TV Unlimited package which costs £12.50 p.m. As I suggested I was liklely to drop the package and move over to Netflix a new package of BB / Phone & TV Essential was suggested effetively reducing my overall monthly bill to £37.34 saving £17.86p.m.
Obviously I would add £6.99 for HD Netflix, but still a saving to be had.
Taking time to consider this, I check the BT website, which again is not at all clear, and discover a TV Entertainment package offering 20 extra channels, the sort of channels that we really want like Discovery, History, National Geographic etc etc.
But it transpires that I am 'not allowed' this package because I don't have Infinity.
This is the same reason I was given some time ago when I kept receiving many postal invitations to take advantage of the then newly launched BT Sports free of charge as I was an existing BT Broadband customer.
No one has yet explained to me why non-Infinity customers, who are not able to receive Infinty in their area are discriminated against in this way?
I notice that now BT Sport is 'available' to copper Broadband customers, why and when was this change made?
Was it because there was a new marketing tool to prssure non Infinity cutomers to sign up with the tempting new TV Entertainment package?
This cannot be to do with speed or bandwidth as I am quite capable of streaming all the TV Unlimited HD movies with my current 'old' package without any buffering whatsoever (we have around 14 mb connection speeds through the standard copper broadband)
So why is it that I was descriminated against from enjoying the BT Sports package when that launched, and I am now being descriminated against from not being allowed to subscribe to the BT Entertainment package?
Unless someone can explain the reason for this other than an unacceptable "it's BT's policy", I believe this to be an absolutely unfair practice and possibly even challengeable under trading standards.
Or am I missing something in the ridiculous level of short term discounts, timed offers, comlicaed package combinations etc etc ?

Thanks for the responses, much appreciated.
Just to reaffirm, I am most happy to pay for the latest technology and would love the opportunity to get off 'obsolete' services, but as I mentioned, Infinity is not in our area and won't be until Jan - July 2106 earliest, despite some villages and hamlets 3 - 4 miles away having been Infinity enabled a fair while ago.
Many in the town have lobbied and signed 'Interested' surveys from BT, plus we host a fair sized software company here who would probably organise free beer for a week when we finally get Infinity. So plenty of voiced interest here.
Thanks for the links Telecom89, I checked the multicast availability and I believe our local exchange is enabled, or 'Available' according to the listing. I have a screen shot showing the data but posting here refuses and removes HTML content.
Fact is I receive all HD movies and HD CatchUp TV from BT and never have buffering issues.
According to the BT DSL Checker our exchange is rated at WBC ADSL 2+ - Up to 14 Mbps, WBC ADSL 2+ Annex M - Up to 14 Mbps, ADSL Max - Up to 8 Mbps, WBC Fixed Rate - 2, Fixed Rate - 2, Copper Multicast - Available
If the exchange is Multicast enabled as suggested was needed by zulu17 what is the technical reason for me not being able to recieve the TV Entertainment package?
Sport was 'Not allowed' a yerar ago and now is availabel to us with no apparent change, but now the current 'Not allowed' policy is on the TV Entertainment package.
It just seems so unfair, if there is no technical / bandwidth reason for this situation, a policy to discriminate in this way hardly promotes customer loyalty, it appears to be more a policy of an organisation that still enjoys a monopoly on services. Do I have a point?

CS won't start up

Hi - I own CS and have been experiencing serial number and start up issues. Also, my After Effects 7.0 can't find the serial numbers as well. I went through a period of removing auto-updates and everything was fine for a bit. I am not interested in reinvesting in this software as I am in independent artist and don't need new software. I am very frustrated that Adobe may be "phoning" home and alerting the company to my odd editions of their software. I bought this as stand alone and would like to continue to use it. Does anyone have a work around for the issues I mention. Illustrator goes through the motions of starting up then doesn't. Aftereffects just wants numbers.. and I am at my wits end with Adobe. I think that I may start a campaign about their unfair practices if I can not get my applications to work.

Before ranting off, let's review the facts, shall we? Now you didn't tell us anything useful, but let's see: After Effects 7 = 2006, AI CS = 2006. Did at that point Windows 7, Windows Vista or Mac OSX 10.6.x even exist? Absolutely not! So why do you even assume, those legacy apps would run without issues on these modern operating systems, when exactly the changed architectures of those OSs work against it by introducing additional security and compatibility features? If any of that applies to your situation, then you are blaming the wrong ones. Trying to instal lany of that e.g. on a new W7 machione is not going to yield the result you have on mind. AE 7 is not even compatible with Vista, anything before CS4 is not compatible with W7 due to issues with Quicktime, Windows Media and general CoDec and file handling, which is even duely noted on the Adobe knowledge base. The same may be true for AI CS due to dependencies on hardware drivers for tablets and printers, but some people have gotten it to install. Still, under any circumstances, this is experimental and success hugely depends on teh specific setup. In any case, you will require to run as admin at any time. The rest is nonsense and beside the point - Adobe is in it for the money and software developers want to get paid, too. So how is it in any way an "unfair practice", if they are trying to sell you newer versions of their software, when the old ones for the aforementioned hard technical reasons won't run and effort had to be invested to make it compatible again? You're not saying that you buy a car once and then expect the manufacturer to fix it for you free of charge for the rest of your life, are you? Why should that be any different with software?
Mylenium

Moving to Non-FiOS Area and Being Charged Contract Breach Fee

I am a faithful Verizon Fios and Wireless customer who has been very content with the products and services Verizon has offered over the years. Recently I’ve been having a major dispute completely out of character from what my experience has been. I am moving to an area that does not have Verizon Fios, so I am unable to transfer my Double Play Package to the new residence. According to the customer support specialists, since “high speed” internet and telephone are available at my new residence, I am forced to either extend my contract for the meager services that are available at my new residence, or pay a contract breach fee of $170. When I initially spoke with the sales department to sign up for the Double Play Package, I specifically asked about, and was guaranteed that if the same services weren’t offered in a new residence that I would not be required to pay a contract breach fee. Knowing that my job as a Department of Defense contractor could result in my needing to change locations, as well as the fact that my lease would be up during the contract period, there was no way I was going enter into the contract without that stipulation. So the situation is either that the sales representative was incorrect, or purposefully misleading. Regardless, I will be moving to a location that is not fully supported by my current contract.
I am a Department of Defense contractor with the Army Wounded Warrior Program, and as such I work primarily from home. The “high speed” band width offered at my new residence by Verizon of 3 mbps does not remotely meet my needs. I currently pay around $150 a month to Verizon Fios for actual high speed internet with a bandwidth of 150 mbps and an HD television package, capable of streaming video, video-teleconferencing, 24/7 internet access, etc. If I were to extend my contract at my new residence I would end up paying $49 a month for 1/50th of the performance, a telephone service that I do not currently even have or need, and zero television service. This is idiotic.
The bottom line is I am moving; I have a contract with Verizon with stipulations that were either erroneous or dishonestly represented, for services not available in the area I’m moving to. The attitude and response I got from the customer support representative I spoke with on July 28th, 2014 was basically too bad, deal with it, pay up or Verizon will take this to collections. Collections…for $170? Amazing. As an MBA I am educated in ethical business practices. Her approach was unethical at the very least, and bordered on extortion. Pay up or else. I was very clear with this individual on what I do for a living, what my requirements are, and the basis of understanding in signing the contract originally. This is like a catering fee for $500 a plate banquet and getting a Happy Meal in a fast food restaurant…and getting threatened for not agreeing to food or location. Demanding $170 dollars because Verizon is not capable of providing services I require is ridiculous. I’ve been an exceptional wireless customer for years and an exceptional FIOS customer for 3 years. It cannot be the $170 profit that Verizon is worried about, because from a business standpoint this is the situation: If I am charged the $170 for disconnecting my current services I will cancel all other Verizon contracts forever. I am a 27 year old business professional and spend roughly $1500 a year on Verizon Wireless products and services. If I continue to use Verizon Wireless products until the age of 60, Verizon will have made roughly $50,000 in revenue over the next 33 years in today’s dollars. Even if you discounted that at 5% (which is a purposefully high number from a capital budgeting standpoint) you stand to forgo a present value of $24,000 in revenue. That means you’re compounded return on the $170 dollars will be about -5% per year. The immediate loss by present value standards will be -99.29%. That’s what satisfied, dedicated customers bring…and for some reason your service representatives don’t grasp this concept and would prefer that I completely leave Verizon as a disgruntled former customer and get the one-time $170 erroneous breach fee. Asinine business model.
The bottom line is that I am going to cancel my FIOS contract next month soley because Verizon is not able to provide the services I require, which is fair. Now, further down the road, the decision on whether I will be a FIOS customer again is going to hinge on my experience to date. If I am unfairly coerced into paying the $170 fee I can honestly say I will no longer use Verizon for any service, wireless or otherwise. I would prefer to pay a little more, lose some connectivity now and then, basically spend my money elsewhere, than be dealt with this way. As a customer going through all this, the breach fee is a pivotal decision point as far as my future as a customer with Verizon goes, as I’m sure it is for other former and future customers. My lesson learned from the support representative and my experience with Verizon as a whole right now is that I would be foolish to enter into another contract with your company if this is how I, as an exceptional customer, am going to be treated in the future.
I would seriously appreciate a call from someone I can discuss this reasonably with as soon as possible. I do not want to directed to support services for this.

I was suprised and disappointed to have had the same expericne as Marc12 when I canceled my Verizon FiOS triple play service today. As with him, I needed to unexpectedly relocate for work after living in my current location for a short time (a little over 1 year) and the area where I'm moving does not offer Verizon FiOS. Overall I have been satisfied with FiOS and would have been happy to continue using their service after moving, but because they don't offer it in my new location that isn't possible. I'm already frustrated that I lost a lot of money by buying and selling a house in such period of time and it certainly was not my intention to move when I signed up for Verizon service (otherwise I would not have bought a house). It feels unfair to be charged a termination fee when I don't really have a choice about moving and I have no option to continue using FiOS. I asked about waiving the termination fee due to the circumstances but the two representatives I spoke with today on the phone refused to honor that request. As with other commentators on here and as Marc12 laid out with his business background, this seems to be a puzzling business decision/strategy by Verizon b/c while I had been happy with FiOS the last 14 months, this turn of events today does not particularly make me want to sign up for Verizon services in the future should I live somewhere where it is an option. It is also a puzzling decision b/c when I briefly lived in an apartment here prior to buying a house last year I had TV/internet with Uverse. Uverse did not charge me a termination fee despite me having had a promotional deal with a contract when I moved even though I only used their services for about 3 months b/c I bought a house in an area where they don't offer service. Their rational for not charging a penalty was that I was moving to an area not served by Uverse. I don't understand why Verizon is adopting what I think would strike most folks as an unfair practice of taking advantage of people who need to move and don't have the option of continuing their Verizon service. It would be great to talk with someone at Verizon who has the authority to make an exception to this cancellation penalty as the two represenatives I talked with today when I canceled my service claimed they didn't have that ability and then claimed that there was no else I could talk with who did have that authority. I also really think that Verizon should rethink this policy. It's unfair, it seems to strike other people that way based on the comments here, it's out of line with their competitiors, and it's creating ill will among customers who were previously happy so that Verizon can save a trivial amount of money compared with the fees they could generate from these same people if they used Verizon in the future.

Keeping BT email address and using a different ISP...

Is it possible to do this with the new BT email service?
Someone on the BT Residential Customer Support Community Forum managed to subscribe to a premium BT email service, keep their existing btinternet.com address for a small fee, and then migrate to a different ISP.
Clearly, ISPs will discourage a lot their customers from migrating if they cannot keep their existing email addresses.
Might that also be seen as some form of unfair practice, in terms of restricting competition?

fungalpis wrote:
Is it possible to do this with the new BT email service?
Someone on the BT Residential Customer Support Community Forum managed to subscribe to a premium BT email service, keep their existing btinternet.com address for a small fee, and then migrate to a different ISP.
Clearly, ISPs will discourage a lot their customers from migrating if they cannot keep their existing email addresses.
Might that also be seen as some form of unfair practice, in terms of restricting competition?
Hi.
The Premium email service is not ceasing, otherwise "they" wouldn't be informing those on old legacy payg or basic email to either move the address to their BT broadband account (if relevant) or pay 1.60 to keep the address.
This service has been around for years.
Not sure your last comments are relevant - since it's up to the user to move as they wish. Obviously an ISP email tie-in is, however, relevant - but this doesn't stop BTinternet users from keeping their address if they move elsewhere (for that fee). I don't know if other ISPs have this sort of facility.
If people chop & change frequently, then it would make sense to only use a non ISP email address, e.g. their own domain, gmail, hotmail, (even Yahoo) if they so wish.
http://www.andyweb.co.uk/shortcuts
http://www.andyweb.co.uk/pictures

Why did I return to verizon!!

I left verizon about 4 years ago because of their poor customer service, even though they have the best coverage in our area. At the launch of the new iPhone I decided to come back and give them a go again. I stood in line over night to make sure I got the iPhone I wanted, and was the second person in line. When the store opened they claimed that they didn't get any iPhone plus 128's. I was totally disappointed but figured, at least I'm getting an iPhone 6 128 gig. While I stood there getting all set up with my new carrier, some guy walks in and they pull out a bunch of iPhone 6 plus 128's and he got all 3. He didn't wait in line at all, he must have been some big shot, and I didn't want to make a seen and be that guy. But now a month has gone by and I just keep thinking about it over and over and get madder and madder. So once my two years are up, I will go back to a lesser service but know I'm dealing with a company that treats its costumers fairly.

I agree with you that I should have been that guy, and shouldn't have bought something I didn't really want. But, the reason I spent the night outside for an apple launch was to get exactly what I wanted. And I certainly didn't expect there to be unfair practices. Of course I could have placed an order at that point, but I could have done that a few weeks prior. Why would I stand in line for almost 10 hours to place an online order. Next time I will stand in line at the apple store like I have in the past, and certainly won't be using verizon again out of principal alone. And to all the other apple fanatics out there, I suggest you don't either unless you to have a friend that works at the store who is going to hook you up and disregard all the people in line.

Why would you NOT enable Loop Guard on switch ports?

Hello
Why would you NOT enable Loop Guard on switch ports?
It is disabled by default on all ports.
Since it prevents loops, in the absence of receiving BPDUs on non-designated ports, why would it not be enabled by default?

Ziffy wrote:
The Galaxy S4 supports Google Wallet, but yet you block it from being used. Why exactly? This is not right. I suggest you enable it before you start losing customers. Is there anybody out there that would like to start a petition? Perhaps look into whether or not this is actually legal? Seems like unfair practices to me. Thoughts?
Good luck with that. FCC already did and have left it alone... My theory is because... Google charges carriers to use allow devices to use it. At one point Sprint paid to go exclusive for wallet. FCC can't force you to buy your competitors product.

Unfair practice

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for