Verizon Wireless Denies It's Charging People Phantom $1.99 Fee, Despite Tons Of Complaints
from the this-won't-end-well dept
For a little while now, Broadband Reports has been doing a good job highlighting how Verizon Wireless has been charging a phantom $1.99 fee for "accessing the internet" even when users claim they did no such thing. Despite a growing amount of press coverage, Verizon Wireless had been silent on the issue. However, once David Pogue at the NY Times reported on it, finally the FCC got involved and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. The company apparently delayed for a while and then sent a reply (pdf). While much of the press coverage focused on a separate question (about why Verizon Wireless had doubled its early termination fees), what may be more interesting is the company's non-response to the phantom $1.99. It basically said it doesn't do what lots and lots of people are saying it does. David Pogue noticed how odd this is and why Verizon Wireless is not being upfront:How about the 400 people who chimed in to say, "Me too!" in the comments of my original post? Are they all idiots? How about me? I found several of those $1.99 charges on my own bills. How about the Verizon whistleblower who has begged his managers to change this greedy scheme, and been told to shut up? Is he mistaken?Even more amusing is that Pogue contacted the Verizon Wireless PR person who had initially scolded him for not getting a comment from the company for his original story:
"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," he said. "I'm not able to comment further."Comforting, right? It amazes me that companies actually think this sort of approach makes sense, when it's almost guaranteed that the details will eventually come out. Update: FCC isn't buying Verizon Wireless' response.
"But you're saying that you don't charge that $1.99 fee!" I told him. "Yet it's happened to hundreds of my readers, and it's happened to me. So what are we missing?"
"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."
"But it just says Verizon isn't doing it!"
"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: denial, phantom fees
Companies: verizon wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Funny how they remove the charge when you call to complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er, are they kinda insane?
Okay, I'd like to get your thoughts.
Well, the letter speaks for us.
But you said I should get your thoughts. What are they?
Well, see, we don't actually have any.
Ah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er, are they kinda insane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er, are they kinda insane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Er, are they kinda insane?
Obviously the PR guy was told what to say, probably by the lawyers.
Given that Pogue and 400 others have the charges on their bills, what the canned statement effectively means is:
"We lied to the F.C.C."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what's really amazing is when the details are already out. There is simply no doubt in reality, not in Verizon's delusional PR land, that it's actually happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How bout that......
Id speak with my wallet but they got me by the balls. Just re-upped our contract so early termination fee will put us in the poor house and AT&T is horrible in my area so Im stuck between a rock and a hard place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How bout that......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How bout that......
I happen to have a friend that works at our local verizon store. I noticed online when you view your bill you can click on the "voice" link and it shows how much talk time you have used and how much you have left but the "data" charge isnt linked to anything so you have no idea how much data you have used and why you're being charged. Great scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How bout that......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How bout that......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oops
The proper word in this context is "discord", not "discourse". What you said was "Shame on Verizon for causing my family to communicate with each other."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oops
In the case of my family, I'm okay with the way he said it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately this is a political issue.
Networks are expensive to do and take time nobody can compete with the big ones if they have to create their own networks and this lead to what the U.S. have now, a cartel, oligopoly or whatever.
The name of the game is unbundling.
The physical infra-structure is shared by every players and all of them contribute to construction of more.
That infra-structure can be managed by a separate entity, by the government or by a body of representatives of the various players.
This leads to a healthy market with hundreds of players and choices and it actually helps build the physical part faster, better and make it robust.
If only the FCC had the power to do it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
the idea is as old as the hills, too bad it never gets taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately this is a political issue.
Networks are expensive to do and take time nobody can compete with the big ones if they have to create their own networks and this lead to what the U.S. have now, a cartel, oligopoly or whatever.
The name of the game is unbundling.
The physical infra-structure is shared by every players and all of them contribute to construction of more.
That infra-structure can be managed by a separate entity, by the government or by a body of representatives of the various players.
This leads to a healthy market with hundreds of players and choices and it actually helps build the physical part faster, better and make it robust.
If only the FCC had the power to do it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately this is a political issue.
That way it could take 10 or 20 years but some communities would start seeing more competition as communities take over the networks and start building their own and letting companies use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
But the thing is, it was not the community it was the government of that community.
I think people should get together in town halls everywhere and build their own networks governed by a cooperative of sorts.
I'm not a fan of public owned anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
I could be wrong. I could just be a pissed of commenter hiding behind a clever name on some website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately this is a political issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Math time
My calculator came back with a small number prefixed with an "E", which I guess means that even my calculator thinks those illegitimate charges are Excessive....
Good boy, calculator. I promise to reward you by not putting my finger over your solar sensor and laughing maniacally as I normally do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't the only scam going on.
I called Verizon to ask why the bill was so high, if the minutes were to be based on the closing date of our account. They told us it reflected the usage of the last month.
So I quickly pulled up my original paperwork and asked simply "So, this advance payment I made when I signed up is yours to keep?"
Most, if not all, cell companies charge users one month in advance when they sign up. But when you close the account, this "final bill" is sent. I just closed my AT&T account, so we'll see if this is an industry practice.
I expect a bill for $110, but somehow, I don't see this happening.
I'm done with the cellular industry. Their price gouging is nothing short of disgusting and it's a monopoly. All plans cost the same, regardless where you go, and if you want to go "pay as you go", every damn one of them charges a $1 to "connect" for a day.
While many feel the government should keep its nose out of the way a company runs itself, this clearly screams of a necessary regulation.
I completely agree with the "end of contract" fees. Why do we pay the same amount after the EFT is complete? Why can't we get a cell plan with a cheap phone without having a 2 year contract? $0.20 to receive spam text messages which they won't clear? Pay-as-you-go requires a reactivation despite having tons of minutes left?
Tell me again why AT&T was broken up as a company? I see no difference in regard to a "monopoly". In fact, it's much, much worse than it could have ever been.
No matter. It'll be weird to walk around without a cell, but for the last week, I haven't missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't the only scam going on.
I did this for three months, just as an experiment. It was WONDERFUL. I found that through email and Skype, I didn't miss any of the connections I wanted, and the only one's complaining were those that were trying to excise some minor level of control over me (family, girlfriend at the time, work, etc.)
Unfortunately, the job required I get a cell phone, so the "experiment" couldn't turn into "a liberating way of life".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't the only scam going on.
The best deal? Net10. 10 cents per minute 24/7...no fees...nothing. Virgin Mobile is a good deal as well if you go with their $7 bucks a month plan in which you pay 10 cents er minute as well. Of course the phones are kinda basic but at least you don't have to shell out a ton of money to these shysters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the only scam going on.
Er,no. Net10 "expires" your prepaid time if you don't keep buying more, even if you don't use it. In effect, a monthly service charge. And it's pretty high. I can get a year of prepaid "service" even from AT&T for $100. The same from Net10 is $200.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't the only scam going on.
Ive had the same cell number since 2004 so its kind of part of who I am so to speak. Since Ive moved out on my own Ive never bothered to get a "home phone" or land line because everyone I know just uses my cell. When I got married and bought my own house we still didnt bother to get a home phone. She has her number and I have mine and it works for us.
Not saying we couldnt do the same as you and tell them to stuff it....(though verizon would still get our money for a land line) It would be a heck of an adjustment for us but it would be do-able. We did it with cable months ago and havent looked back. Downgraded to internet only and with 3 terabytes of storage and apple tv its not hard for us to find something to watch and store it for later use.
Times are changing and customers are more aware of how we are getting screwed and we arent happy. Yeah most people will over look this charge and just say "Oh if its what they say we owe then we better pay it" But more and more are asking questions and hopefully getting things changed for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the only scam going on.
You do realize that you can bring your number with you if you change companies? I did that when I got my iPhone.
(At least you can in the US. YMMV elsewhere.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
choices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starting to make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks
Depends on where you live apparently. In the Maryland/DC area, they're about equal (with the notable exception of Verizon having cells in the Metro, which might be a dealmaker.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a Verizon customer...
I don't know if I just never hit that button (I know which one it was) or if the issue is more complicated than thought. Someone commented "You are charged for data if you send a picture." and I never sent a picture on any of my phones.
To be honest, when I first read that article and say all the comments, I chalked it up to AT&T FUD to try and fight the Droid launch. I'm still not entirely sure what to think about this issue. Maybe I got lucky?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
billing
Just his way of saying you're right, but if I say anything else, I'm out of a job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember Cingular
1. ATT Account #00******
2. Cingular bridge account # for txfr from ATT *****
3. Current Cingular # *******
Last year I lost my AA&T phone Account #00 . I went to the phone store to get another. As Cingular had just purchased AT&T I signed up with them account # A. I pay my bills from BofA online service. I was making the monthly payments when I started to get late notices. Cingular had started to pay the funds into my "old" AT&T account #. So I called them. They said I should be paying the funds into my "current" account #. I had been from 8/9/05. When they created the # 3 account number I have no idea. I suspect I'm not the only person switched from AT&T to them complaining about billing. I wonder if there thousands of people who pay into a "closed" account. Cingular maintains that they need to keep account open to accept past balances due. If I close an account with a company I expect them to reject money sent to them. Or inform my bank that account is closed. If thousands of accounts like mine are being treated this way then Cingular may be holding in "credit " accounts millions of dollars. I believe this is a shadow accounting practice by Cingular as a way to keep funds in their bank.
I had them transfer the 316.84 into my current account and mail me a check for the excess credit amount. All through the call with the first service person she said my money was not in a Cingular bank, that it was in MY credit account. Finally she admitted that my check for the excess amount was going to come from a Cingular bank.
four days after clicking send I got a call from the office of the President of Cingular saying they wanted to address my issues.
Don't whine about it online, go to your state public utilities commissioner website and lay it out for him. 400 of you doing that will get some serious notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me Too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Me Too
So did a lot of other people. The problem was, the message you get telling you access is blocked takes up 0.06 kilobytes of data, triggering the $1.99 fee. A vicious loop.
Other people complain the fee arrives even when the phone is off, the phone battery is dead, or the phone lacks the basic software required to even go online.
An insider was recently quoted in the Times as saying that Verizon's aware of the fee, they just aren't working very hard to fix it because it generates millions in additional revenue annually.
It's been ongoing for more than a year, impacts thousands of customers, and Verizon's playing dumb because they don't want the class action lawyers or state Attorneys General pursuing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
56 times a month
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 56 times a month
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/verizon.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my case, I bought a new phone from Verizon, and that phone had text-messaging capability, and my new contract inlcuded 400 text messages a month. I've had the same phone number with Verizon since 1998. On the first day after I activated my phone I began to receive on average, 10 text messages a day, all spam or 'wrong numbers.' Not one of the messages was meant for me, and at that time, nobody I knew was even sending text messages, so there was no way they could have been my messages.
I called up and asked the Verizon rep to reverse the 30 text messages that showed up on the first 3 days after I started using the new phone. She said she couldn't do that, and when I asked her 'Well, what happens if I get more than 400 of these junk text messages in a month, would I have to pay for them at .20 cents each?' She said yes, and I told her to block all text messages, since this was a feature I had never used and never planned on using. At first, she swore this wasn't possible, but I told her to find a way. She did find a way to block all text messages, after keeping me on hold for almost an hour.
I've never had this problem with T-Mobile, and I've been with them for at least 6 years. During that entire time, text messaging feature was turned on but I didn't start receiving messages until I let friends and family know they could reach me this way. Not a single text spam or misdirected text message has ever showed up in my T-Mobile account.
Now the Verizon phone and account has been cut to a basic $20 a month service plan, since I'm not using the phone and I'm out of my contract, I'll probably end up just shutting down my account completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since we're ranting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wonders of No Regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wonders of No Regulation
As far as an individual company, like Verizon, being afraid of alienating their client base...
When a company has 86 million customers, do you really think they care at all about an individual's complaint? Or even that of a handful of people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm.....
Also, in response to a prior comment, VZW billed me retroactively for service on the first bill. I did not "prepay". So a "final bill" reflecting last month usage is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two, you are never charged for Picture Messaging as long as the picture in question was taken by a phone and sent directly to another phone. You are only charged for data from a picture message (or video) if that picture or video is linked from the web in that message. If you link a picture or video from a website (like photbucket or youtube) in a sms message to a handset, they will get charged data to view it. The $1.99/mb rate applies unless they have a data plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UGH FRUSTRATED CUSTOMER
There were a total of four people in one account and I didn't think much of it when they were charged with a data plan, maybe they've been downloading games. This has been going on for years. Until that day when I had to cancel one of the lines, I asked if she's been downloading games throughout the year and she said 'no'. Every month I had to pay over 4 dollars of data charges for nothing! And then I learned about verizon refunding data charges to its customers.
Then I realized this shit is applied on my line as well! and I pay the $30.00 text package so WTF WTF WTF. I'm so angry with them. I've been a customer (a blind one) for 6 years. I'm definitely switching out by the end of this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANOTHER VERIZON RIP OFF SCAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]