Verizon Wireless Math Strikes Again: Pay Much More For Less!

from the pay-more,-get-less dept

You may recall, from a few years ago, the concept of "Verizon Math," where the company had tremendous trouble understanding the difference between dollars and cents once you added decimals into the equation, repeatedly telling someone that .05 cents was the same as .05 dollars. While this isn't quite as insane, Techdirt reader Pangolin shares with us his experience in trying to see if there was a better deal on his Verizon MiFi that would let him use more than the capped $60/5GB plan at a reasonable rate. Since he was going to be using the MiFi more frequently, and might have to download large files for work, he was worried that he'd be going over the cap, and the $0.05 dollars per MB overage fee seemed high. He figured there must be a "pro" or "business" plan that might make more sense.

After searching and being unable to find it, he began an online chat with a Verizon rep (included in full after the jump below) where he discovered that the upgraded plan was for twice the data... but for more than three times the costs: 10GB for $199. And overage rates? On that plan, they're knocked up to $0.25/MB. As Pangolin notes, why would anyone pay for that, when they could just buy two or even three of the regular MiFi plans, and get a ton more data transfer and significantly lower overage fees even if they did go over. Verizon's answer? "Sorry."

For what it's worth, as Pangolin notes, there's no info online about a higher capped plan, and I contacted Verizon Wireless PR to ask them if such a plan existed. I got back a non-answer, pointing to the webpage showing the 5GB cap. So I asked again. And got no answer. So I asked again. And got no answer. On the fourth try, I was finally told that such a plan does not exist. Yet, if you look around many others have been offered the same plan, and various websites have reported on it as well. So, it sounds like Verizon does offer this oddly priced plan that makes no sense... but just doesn't want to admit it. It makes you wonder why they even bother at all.

In what world does it make sense to charge significantly more for less on an upgraded plan? Full transcript of the chat after the jump...

Filed Under: mifi, pricing, wireless
Companies: verizon wireless

Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Well, well, well. For over a year now there have been widespread reports of how Verizon Wireless would charged users $1.99 for data services, even if they have data services turned off. This was happening sometimes to users with phones turned off or even batteries drained. The whole thing was incredibly questionable. Verizon customer service folks insisted that the people in question clearly accessed the internet, but there were so many reports that they had not, that this response didn't fly. Then, after the NY Times reported about it, the FCC finally woke up and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. Its response was basically a non-response, insisting that it had done nothing wrong -- and when David Pogue from the NY Times pushed the company about the over 400 accounts of it happening to his readers (and himself), Verizon Wireless' response was "I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," repeated for every question Pogue asked.

That was in December of last year. Now, ten months later, Verizon has just announced that it's going to pay back "up to" $90 million in such bogus fees that it never should have charged to about 15 million subscribers. Apparently, those claims of not having done stuff wrong... well... it looks like that wasn't the case. It looks like they incorrectly charged people to the tune of perhaps $90 million (the company apparently thinks it could be more like $50 million once they've found all the false charges). Seems like a pretty big "accident," which they denied for so long. The latest statement suggests that Verizon Wireless "just" noticed these errors while "reviewing customer accounts," but given the number of complaints, and the fact that it's been going on for so long, including massive press coverage and an FCC investigation, you would think the company would have figured this out sooner.

Speaking of the FCC, it appears that it's not entirely satisfied with this customer refund, as the head of the FCC's enforcement bureau (or some PR staffer working there) amusingly quipped that the FCC was: "gratified to see the repayment, but for millions of Americans it's a day late and a $1.99 short."

Filed Under: data fees, fees, returns
Companies: fcc, verizon wireless

Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...

from the say-what-now dept

Regular Techdirt commenter Max Davis (who I believe may be involved in this lawsuit) passed along the news that all the big US mobile operators have been sued -- including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile -- under the claim that their MMS platforms are really illegal file sharing networks, and that these operators are no different than Limewire or Gnuttella. Yes, seriously -- the email Max sent repeatedly refers to MMS and Limewire as if they were the same. Here's the complaint: Honestly, the whole lawsuit seems ridiculous. Here's the crux of it:

Defendants, and each of them, enabled the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyright protected content via mobile devices by building and implementing a peer to peer file sharing network with the dedicated purpose of enabling end users to share multimedia files via this MMS network. Defendants, and each of them, profited from these activities by charging the transmitter and receivers of this content a fee or flat rate for the transfer/transmission that resulted in the publication of said content. Despite charging the transmitter and receiver a fee for the delivery of this copyrighted content, Defendants, and each of them, failed to compensate the holder of the copyrights for this content that was necessary in generating the MMS data revenue. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them failed or refused to provide a system where an adequate accounting of the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyrighted content could be made.

Basically, this company, Luvdarts, made MMS content, and it got distributed via MMS. Since recipients of MMS can forward the MMS data they receive, such content got forwarded around. Since the mobile operators receive revenue for MMS data, Luvdarts is effectively claiming that they are profiting off the infringement of Luvdarts content. This makes no sense. It's like saying that any email provider is infringing on the copyrights of email writers by letting recipients forward emails. You know those chain emails that get passed around? Imagine if one of the authors of those then sued all the big email providers. It would get laughed out of court. Hopefully, this lawsuit gets laughed out of court too.

The one oddity is that the lawsuit claims that the mobile operators do not qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections, because they're "not service providers" as defined in the DMCA. Specifically:

The transmission of this MMS data is not covered by the exemption for Internet Service Providers as set forth in 17 U.S.C. §512 because the wireless carriers are not Internet Service Providers as defined by §512 while providing a dedicated MMS network for multimedia file sharing.

Really? If you haven't read your §512 lately, why not go take a look and explain how a mobile operator offering MMS is not covered. It certainly seems covered by the definition:

Definitions.--
(1) Service provider--
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

Help me out. Where are mobile operators offering MMS features excluded? Looks like yet another frivolous lawsuit. But, of course, Luvdarts is demanding the statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringement, and claims "9,999 to 100,000 counts of infringement" (broad enough range there?). Good luck, Max.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, mms
Companies: at&t, luvdarts, sprint, t-mobile, verizon wireless