$3200 phone bill in three months!?!

[bsd]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHireThe first time someone got through, the company computers should have realized "Hey, these people are getting free international calls!" or operators should have notified the company when people were always calling for an override.If they built a blackbox and h4x0rd the company lines, that's illegal. If they took advantage of an obviously moronic company with little to no auditing or security practices - company's own damn fault IMO. To not notice something like this for three months is ridiculous, especially if so many customers did.Or perhaps they did notice, and just decided "Hey, let's be like the Americans and fvck the customer when it really hurts! Christmas!"< George Carlin >"As the salesman says this, he positions himself directly behind the customer and proceeds to 'service the account'."< /GC >Good old American business practices.- M4H

i cant imagine it has gone on for that long, i know cable and wirless changed hands a while ago and that may have been the reason. eitherway like you said it would crop up, maybe they did it as part of a new phone strategy and realised people were ripping them off.its not that we didnt notice it for three month, that was the amount of time we could back charge for. what it probably was, was a software error meaning they werent getting charged, and when it was found they worked on it.if they got a lot of abuse it would be obvious in the first quarter with a margin ratio change analysis of the profitability of the service, so i dont think it was endemic and anyway it only applied to two of four databases for london (we have over 15 databases nationally).

"Recently we stared charging for these calls at 5x the normal rates (they arent meant for non-emergency calls) and realised that people had been taking advantage of free uinternational calls," The back door was left open and then you charge back at 5x rates... that is wrong... just plain wrong.... Blaming the customers that outsmarted the system is counterproductive to customer loyalty. Not that they should be allowed to continue, but the fault is SHARED here. I'm sure the idiot who was in charge still has his job.... You were only temping and you swallowed the company line hook line and sinker.... Merry ChristmA$$ indeed! :disgust:

so what if you are disgusted, your company wouldnt let people like that off the hook, and as an employee im there to serve, get it?
we should not reward people who try and freeload off us, we have to make up losses from that off honest customers, you dont know anything about reputation or integrity.
i imagine that 5x is the actual amount listed in the service agreement - and remember this service is designed for short emergency overrides of the blocking agreement the account holder has put in place to stop other occupants abusing the phone and running up a huge bill, and can only be used by the account holder or pin number 'quoter'. thinking about it i imagine there was a software error, and people noiced they werent charged, started abusing it, and got the charges reinstated, serves them right, i dont try and swindle people, and im sure youd be the first to rant about a troll if you were trolled, so fug you for christmass.

 

[AlienCraft]

Fug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me.
I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge.
As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended.
IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent.
The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year???


<np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

 

[LANMAN]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Boy, aren't you in the holiday spirit? Yeah, they made the calls, so I do partially blame the people as well. But your rejoicing in the fact that they are going to get these huge bills at Xmas time...and possibly ruin it for them AND THEIR KIDS, makes you nothing short of an ass. What a scrooge. Don't worry, you'll get yours one day buddy.

just like those morons who used their service illegally are getting theirs. and your point is?

Ya.. what PG said!!

--LANMAN

 

[Gaard]

Waveslidin - <<Yeah, they made the calls, so I do partially blame the people as well.>>
Um...partially?

"I want to make a long distance call but they're blocked. I know...I'll just call the operator and she'll connect me free of charge. Hmmm, as long as it's free of charge I may as well soak it for all I can get. As a matter of fact, I'll just keep doing this, fvck the phone company."

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Fug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me. I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge. As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended. IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent. The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year??? <np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

like i said it was probably a temporary software problem that they realised then checked on, and found some abuse of, and then decided to reinstate the charges. if some losers try and rip us off, then they will lose, why dont you try ripping a company off and then accuse it of price gouging, you idiot. these calls are for short emergencies, and cost so much I imagine to both malke a bigger profit than on the main contracts, and to cover much higher costs than for the massive volume price plans. loads of companies offer their main products cheaply and then have fatter margins on more peripheral services. I mean I thought 5x is a bit much as well, but the prices are regulated and the regulator could force a reduction if justified, so I guess its not too bad a price afterall.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Waveslidin - <<Yeah, they made the calls, so I do partially blame the people as well.>>Um...partially? "I want to make a long distance call but they're blocked. I know...I'll just call the operator and she'll connect me free of charge. Hmmm, as long as it's free of charge I may as well soak it for all I can get. As a matter of fact, I'll just keep doing this, fvck the phone company."

i think fvck the phone company is the right summary, basically to run up a couple of grand in a few months they basically phoned these villages, andleft the line on all day, and - i imagine - got all their friends and family round toenjoy this bounty of free talk time, instead of paying 25c per minute for a phone card.

the worst bills would probably go toarbitration, but they will still have to pay stubstantial amounts, afterall every minute they spend talking we have marginal costs, its not that we just set the network up and have no short-run marginal costs with international calls.

 

[ndee]

I think that's bull. It was YOUR fault you didn't close this loophole. Why didn't you charge the phone calls who are made thru the operator? Or did I get it wrong? *confused as hell*

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
u wanna see what's more ridiculous?I had a friend of mine named Myung, his uncle is the president of S. Korea. I remember I got into his car and there was an AT&T phonebill on his glove compartment. It was $2400~ I asked WTF? he said:"Talking to my gf in Korea.."OMFG

in asia politics = money, or so it seems.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: acidvoodooye, i'm very impressed with the broadband service. u always hear of ' the more people with cable in the area with cable, the slower it gets', well that hasn't happend to me *yet*, i always get my maximum speed. i only ever have lost service once, which was at like 2am ,so i shoulda been in bed anyway i'm considerig upgradin to the 1mbit, but now just yet. i guess as BT is giving no competition to BY, they have no need to go even firther and introduce 2mbiti don't use the digital service that much, mainly it's the rest of my family that does, but it;s quite good. i think people with sky get better channels, but with blueyonder u always seem to get those channes a few months after, for no extra charge so that's good.

glad too hear you like the broadband blueyonder. we had one megabit in the office, and you can watch a 2MB photo fill a screen in a couple of secs! Quite a few people are favouring 1Mb just for quick download convenience and perhaps running game servers. as i understand it there is 27Mbps of data bandwidth in a cable, literally, so if it gets saturated they have to split this cable into two, and add another another one, thereby halfing the number of users on each cable.bt wont be able to compete without ethnet over fibre to the street, and then copper for the last 250 metres, and wifi would be cometetive in costs to that, but youd still have to get tv separately, and cable could go from multiplexing all the voice, data, and video, to an ethernet type encoding which would mean only the channels being watched would be transmitted, that would free up a lot of redundant bandwidth for video on demand and internet data. so late night midweek you could get maybe 100Mbs easy.

ill just reiterate that, only cable/ fibre and telco wire based transmission will be able to give full tv on demand, you know, any programme, anytime, streamed, sdtv or hdtv, because there isnt the bandwidth in the wifi spectrum, or expanded for the competing demands of a neighbourhood, or city district at the weekend. and anyway wifi is unregulated so i imagine you would want companies with guaranteed no-interference signals, and as far as i can see wifi will have some destructive interference problems in points halfway between two basestations.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: ndee
I think that's bull. It was YOUR fault you didn't close this loophole. Why didn't you charge the phone calls who are made thru the operator? Or did I get it wrong? *confused as hell*

I think that's bull. It was YOUR fault you didn't close this loophole.

If it was a loophope, we couldnt charge them, the regulator would bust our balls

Why didn't you charge the phone calls who are made thru the operator?
I dont know software error I guess, anyway we did charge it for them, it will have been in the formal fee schedule, just we didnt apply it to the account because of a software error, and applied it all on later when we discovered it, anyway the back dated reinstated charges only went back 3 months by law, who knows how much more they had abused it before then, a lot probably. i think only a small number of customers abused it though, probably les than 1/2 million dollars in revenue that was affected, and we will get most of it back, which is not that much considering that they spend more than that each month printing and posting bills to the customers. also if we hadnt have done that they would have used phone cards, and we wouldnt have seen any revenue. so in this one the worm really did turn.

 

[Aceshigh]

I don't feel sorry for them at all. They knowingly made the calls and thought they were getting away with it. Any fool would know that nothing is free. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught. Time for them to pay for the calls they made.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Fug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me. I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge. As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended. IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent. The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year??? <np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

like i said it was probably a temporary software problem that they realised then checked on, and found some abuse of, and then decided to reinstate the charges. if some losers try and rip us off, then they will lose, why dont you try ripping a company off and then accuse it of price gouging, you idiot. these calls are for short emergencies, and cost so much I imagine to both malke a bigger profit than on the main contracts, and to cover much higher costs than for the massive volume price plans. loads of companies offer their main products cheaply and then have fatter margins on more peripheral services. I mean I thought 5x is a bit much as well, but the prices are regulated and the regulator could force a reduction if justified, so I guess its not too bad a price afterall.

Well, I am not surprised that you would call me an idiot given that you have ignored my more rational statements. I suppose you're not used to someone challenging your Coporate STOOGE /Collector THUG Mindset. This from a recently furloughed Temporary worker who has taken some sort of MORAL HIGH Ground for a TeleCommunications CONglomerate. HOW that is a SOCIAL and Humanitarian Position of strength is beyond me.
Let's recap.... Company mistake, company failure to properly charge or anticipate usage, Remedy: BACK Charge the miscreants @ 5 times rate??? OK, I understand charging for actual usage is one thing , but 5 times rates is punitive and usurous, IMHO. And NOT Closing the LOOPHOLE is their own damn fault.
NO WHERE in any post do I advocate receiving services for free. Nor do I think that ThePhone Company owes me somnething... That's for the likes of Steve Jobs and The Woz. I PAY THE Phone Company Thousands and I don't like rip offs either. I just don't think the Company in this case is very smart about it. I'll bet there are remedys available you're not telling , so as to enhance the position of your "Tale of Revenge of The Phone -I"
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on P2P music file sharing (Napster, et al) and see if your morals follow your practices.
The impression I'm taking away from this is you are someone who has apparently thought his position and tenure are related to how much pleasure he can derive from someone's else's misfortune. Geez ,trying breathing before you respond to my posts, ya flippin FOGHEAD.... started with a real pejorative, but it's really not that serious an issue to debase myself with hurling invectives like a shuttlecock.
Geez, did you get a bounty for every head delivered to the front office?? Are you a shareholder??? Has working for Da'Man sucked your soul from you so quickly????
< Overt Sarcasm from a colonist... disregard if unable to laff at one's self or admit fault......

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraftFug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me. I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge. As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended. IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent. The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year??? <np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

like i said it was probably a temporary software problem that they realised then checked on, and found some abuse of, and then decided to reinstate the charges. if some losers try and rip us off, then they will lose, why dont you try ripping a company off and then accuse it of price gouging, you idiot. these calls are for short emergencies, and cost so much I imagine to both malke a bigger profit than on the main contracts, and to cover much higher costs than for the massive volume price plans. loads of companies offer their main products cheaply and then have fatter margins on more peripheral services. I mean I thought 5x is a bit much as well, but the prices are regulated and the regulator could force a reduction if justified, so I guess its not too bad a price afterall.

Well, I am not surprised that you would call me an idiot given that you have ignored my more rational statements. I suppose you're not used to someone challenging your Coporate STOOGE /Collector THUG Mindset. This from a recently furloughed Temporary worker who has taken some sort of MORAL HIGH Ground for a TeleCommunications CONglomerate. HOW that is a SOCIAL and Humanitarian Position of strength is beyond me. Let's recap.... Company mistake, company failure to properly charge or anticipate usage, Remedy: BACK Charge the miscreants @ 5 times rate??? OK, I understand charging for actual usage is one thing , but 5 times rates is punitive and usurous, IMHO. And NOT Closing the LOOPHOLE is their own damn fault. NO WHERE in any post do I advocate receiving services for free. Nor do I think that ThePhone Company owes me somnething... That's for the likes of Steve Jobs and The Woz. I PAY THE Phone Company Thousands and I don't like rip offs either. I just don't think the Company in this case is very smart about it. I'll bet there are remedys available you're not telling , so as to enhance the position of your "Tale of Revenge of The Phone -I" I would be interested to hear your thoughts on P2P music file sharing (Napster, et al) and see if your morals follow your practices. The impression I'm taking away from this is you are someone who has apparently thought his position and tenure are related to how much pleasure he can derive from someone's else's misfortune. Geez ,trying breathing before you respond to my posts, ya flippin FOGHEAD.... started with a real pejorative, but it's really not that serious an issue to debase myself with hurling invectives like a shuttlecock. Geez, did you get a bounty for every head delivered to the front office?? Are you a shareholder??? Has working for Da'Man sucked your soul from you so quickly???? < Overt Sarcasm from a colonist... disregard if unable to laff at one's self or admit fault......

i use file swappers like most broadband customers do.
i dont have a problem with it and i dont particularly see it as blatant stealing.
i mean if i buy a paper, i expect to be able to let others read it.
secondly i would be prepared to pay 5stlg a month bundled with isp web provision for mps3 if the service was as good as audio galaxy, ie they provided a competetive product, if audio galaxy have split 8 dollarsa month with isps thay would have made a killing, and the isps would have worked with riaa for upholding the law. im into dance music mainly, and cant buy the tracks that i want, Im not paying 16stlg for one or two tracks on an album. interms of the mass market where the cartel makes its retail and live event tour money, well I didnt buy many cds before mps3 anyway, i just bought the odd dance compilation and recorded on tape radio mixes.
in terms of the services available now, they dont integrate central servers with limited but dependable choice, with the choice of p2p, so fug em, if they arent going to embrace the best customer service.

if i dont break the law i either spend an extorional amount of money because the cartel wont jeapordise its retail interests and is fumbling its online opportunity as a low cost channel with high service and flexibility, or i restrict myself to what i cant get on radio 1,
and anyway i go to club nights with leading djs which they charge enough for, and in dance that is where most of the djs make most of their money, most hardly make any on record sales, only the biggest artists make a lot from dance records.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraftFug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me. I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge. As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended. IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent. The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year??? <np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

like i said it was probably a temporary software problem that they realised then checked on, and found some abuse of, and then decided to reinstate the charges. if some losers try and rip us off, then they will lose, why dont you try ripping a company off and then accuse it of price gouging, you idiot. these calls are for short emergencies, and cost so much I imagine to both malke a bigger profit than on the main contracts, and to cover much higher costs than for the massive volume price plans. loads of companies offer their main products cheaply and then have fatter margins on more peripheral services. I mean I thought 5x is a bit much as well, but the prices are regulated and the regulator could force a reduction if justified, so I guess its not too bad a price afterall.

Well, I am not surprised that you would call me an idiot given that you have ignored my more rational statements. I suppose you're not used to someone challenging your Coporate STOOGE /Collector THUG Mindset. This from a recently furloughed Temporary worker who has taken some sort of MORAL HIGH Ground for a TeleCommunications CONglomerate. HOW that is a SOCIAL and Humanitarian Position of strength is beyond me. Let's recap.... Company mistake, company failure to properly charge or anticipate usage, Remedy: BACK Charge the miscreants @ 5 times rate??? OK, I understand charging for actual usage is one thing , but 5 times rates is punitive and usurous, IMHO. And NOT Closing the LOOPHOLE is their own damn fault. NO WHERE in any post do I advocate receiving services for free. Nor do I think that ThePhone Company owes me somnething... That's for the likes of Steve Jobs and The Woz. I PAY THE Phone Company Thousands and I don't like rip offs either. I just don't think the Company in this case is very smart about it. I'll bet there are remedys available you're not telling , so as to enhance the position of your "Tale of Revenge of The Phone -I" I would be interested to hear your thoughts on P2P music file sharing (Napster, et al) and see if your morals follow your practices. The impression I'm taking away from this is you are someone who has apparently thought his position and tenure are related to how much pleasure he can derive from someone's else's misfortune. Geez ,trying breathing before you respond to my posts, ya flippin FOGHEAD.... started with a real pejorative, but it's really not that serious an issue to debase myself with hurling invectives like a shuttlecock. Geez, did you get a bounty for every head delivered to the front office?? Are you a shareholder??? Has working for Da'Man sucked your soul from you so quickly???? < Overt Sarcasm from a colonist... disregard if unable to laff at one's self or admit fault......

i use file swappers like most broadband customers do.
i dont have a problem with it and i dont particularly see it as blatant stealing.
i mean if i buy a paper, i expect to be able to let others read it.
secondly i would be prepared to pay 5stlg a month bundled with isp web provision for mps3 if the service was as good as audio galaxy, ie they provided a competetive product, if audio galaxy have split 8 dollarsa month with isps thay would have made a killing, and the isps would have worked with riaa for upholding the law. im into dance music mainly, and cant buy the tracks that i want, Im not paying 16stlg for one or two tracks on an album. interms of the mass market where the cartel makes its retail and live event tour money, well I didnt buy many cds before mps3 anyway, i just bought the odd dance compilation and recorded on tape radio mixes.
in terms of the services available now, they dont integrate central servers with limited but dependable choice, with the choice of p2p, so fug em, if they arent going to embrace the best customer service.

if i dont break the law i either spend an extorional amount of money because the cartel wont jeapordise its retail interests and is fumbling its online opportunity as a low cost channel with high service and flexibility, or i restrict myself to what i cant get on radio 1,
and anyway i go to club nights with leading djs which they charge enough for, and in dance that is where most of the djs make most of their money, most hardly make any on record sales, only the biggest artists make a lot from dance records.

RIGGHT...
Try replacing "Record Company" or (Artist Name) with "Phone company" and see if you don't start running into your own words coming back at you. Your inability to part with your money for a service or good yet still aquiring that service or good might seem to those that are paying for said service or good as theft, which by common definition is the use of services or goods without proper compensation.
YOU OWE the holder of the COPYRIGHTS for those lovely music files a fee per item not purchased in another form. The License you claim is only yours if you have purchased the item and are using it for PERSONAL USE. That doesn't mean you can make copies and distribute them. You have a Limited Use License. To deny it from your MORAL HIGH GROUND is specious and self serving.
I laugh at your blatant rationalization of your own service theft... If the RIAA( Or European counterpart) came into your world and assessed a fee for the unpaid files you claim to enjoy , AFTER THE FACT, wouldn't you Be raising a fuss ,claiming lack of prior enforcement?? SoUND FAMILIAR to our previous topic to you in any way???? A reporter knows that his work is going to be read and handed around for no extra pay. A musician who is depending on the sales of CD's for remuneration for that music might have another point of view. IT IS THEIR perogative to decide how their work will be distributed and how compensation is derived. Music as such is a work from someone who deserves to be compensated for it. To say that because the Record Company is "EVIL" ignores the basic tenat of commerce. Supply and Demand at it's best and most pure. Can't afford it... Steal it.... Seems to run at odds with your earlier rant re: those loser who steal Bandwidth from ThePhoneCompany....
AND BTW, the DJ's and producers I know and work with ALL pay royalties to the artists whose work they sample, Clubs and Bars pay the licensing entities fees for the performance of music for third party profit. IT's THE LAW, and IT ( Copyright Law), unlike telecommunications service agreements, are INTERNATIONAL in their scope and jurisdiction. BMI and ASCAP make it their business to go far and wide to enforce their licensing agreements for their clients. The RIAA is investigating the Naval Academy here in the US. Some of those guys are about to find out what "Honor Code" really means. I might suggest you re-examine your own position for possible conflicts in your logic stream.
Those same DJ's and Producers have learned that the real payoff comes from OWNING ALL of the Rights to the MUSIC they create. They have gone so far as to re-record certain musical passages and songs so as to avoid mandatory payments and compulsory fees.
It's called playing the game.
Kinda what your Customers were doing in their "work-around", to this observer.
BTW, the record Companies almost NEVER share in the Live Money generated by the Artists. And Videos aren't free and the buffet and catering for any parties comes out of the Artists money. Record Companies are as evil as your Phone Company, dude.

<np Miles Davis.... Sketches of Spain

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraftFug me , sir? :Q:disgust: I think not, for you are not of the correct gender nor do I find your disposition appealing.

Your thinly veiled hostility is lost on me. I understand the issues involved based on the information you divulge. As you divulged, more tidbits of facts re: service agreement, I can see where the Fugue begins and the waltz has ended. IF this is in fact a rampant problem, I suggest that the company may still be at fault and simply gouging those it catches as an EXAMPLE for Public Consumption in order to serve as a deterrent. The only trolling I find here is your (EX) Company's trolling for SUCKA's.... ooops customers..... Mutton good this time of year??? <np.......Freedom of Choice..... DEVO

like i said it was probably a temporary software problem that they realised then checked on, and found some abuse of, and then decided to reinstate the charges. if some losers try and rip us off, then they will lose, why dont you try ripping a company off and then accuse it of price gouging, you idiot. these calls are for short emergencies, and cost so much I imagine to both malke a bigger profit than on the main contracts, and to cover much higher costs than for the massive volume price plans. loads of companies offer their main products cheaply and then have fatter margins on more peripheral services. I mean I thought 5x is a bit much as well, but the prices are regulated and the regulator could force a reduction if justified, so I guess its not too bad a price afterall.

Well, I am not surprised that you would call me an idiot given that you have ignored my more rational statements. I suppose you're not used to someone challenging your Coporate STOOGE /Collector THUG Mindset. This from a recently furloughed Temporary worker who has taken some sort of MORAL HIGH Ground for a TeleCommunications CONglomerate. HOW that is a SOCIAL and Humanitarian Position of strength is beyond me. Let's recap.... Company mistake, company failure to properly charge or anticipate usage, Remedy: BACK Charge the miscreants @ 5 times rate??? OK, I understand charging for actual usage is one thing , but 5 times rates is punitive and usurous, IMHO. And NOT Closing the LOOPHOLE is their own damn fault. NO WHERE in any post do I advocate receiving services for free. Nor do I think that ThePhone Company owes me somnething... That's for the likes of Steve Jobs and The Woz. I PAY THE Phone Company Thousands and I don't like rip offs either. I just don't think the Company in this case is very smart about it. I'll bet there are remedys available you're not telling , so as to enhance the position of your "Tale of Revenge of The Phone -I" I would be interested to hear your thoughts on P2P music file sharing (Napster, et al) and see if your morals follow your practices. The impression I'm taking away from this is you are someone who has apparently thought his position and tenure are related to how much pleasure he can derive from someone's else's misfortune. Geez ,trying breathing before you respond to my posts, ya flippin FOGHEAD.... started with a real pejorative, but it's really not that serious an issue to debase myself with hurling invectives like a shuttlecock. Geez, did you get a bounty for every head delivered to the front office?? Are you a shareholder??? Has working for Da'Man sucked your soul from you so quickly???? < Overt Sarcasm from a colonist... disregard if unable to laff at one's self or admit fault......

i use file swappers like most broadband customers do.i dont have a problem with it and i dont particularly see it as blatant stealing.i mean if i buy a paper, i expect to be able to let others read it.secondly i would be prepared to pay 5stlg a month bundled with isp web provision for mps3 if the service was as good as audio galaxy, ie they provided a competetive product, if audio galaxy have split 8 dollarsa month with isps thay would have made a killing, and the isps would have worked with riaa for upholding the law. im into dance music mainly, and cant buy the tracks that i want, Im not paying 16stlg for one or two tracks on an album. interms of the mass market where the cartel makes its retail and live event tour money, well I didnt buy many cds before mps3 anyway, i just bought the odd dance compilation and recorded on tape radio mixes.in terms of the services available now, they dont integrate central servers with limited but dependable choice, with the choice of p2p, so fug em, if they arent going to embrace the best customer service.if i dont break the law i either spend an extorional amount of money because the cartel wont jeapordise its retail interests and is fumbling its online opportunity as a low cost channel with high service and flexibility, or i restrict myself to what i cant get on radio 1, and anyway i go to club nights with leading djs which they charge enough for, and in dance that is where most of the djs make most of their money, most hardly make any on record sales, only the biggest artists make a lot from dance records.

RIGGHT... Try replacing "Record Company" or (Artist Name) with "Phone company" and see if you don't start running into your own words coming back at you. Your inability to part with your money for a service or good yet still aquiring that service or good might seem to those that are paying for said service or good as theft, which by common definition is the use of services or goods without proper compensation. YOU OWE the holder of the COPYRIGHTS for those lovely music files a fee per item not purchased in another form. The License you claim is only yours if you have purchased the item and are using it for PERSONAL USE. That doesn't mean you can make copies and distribute them. You have a Limited Use License. To deny it from your MORAL HIGH GROUND is specious and self serving. I laugh at your blatant rationalization of your own service theft... If the RIAA( Or European counterpart) came into your world and assessed a fee for the unpaid files you claim to enjoy , AFTER THE FACT, wouldn't you Be raising a fuss ,claiming lack of prior enforcement?? SoUND FAMILIAR to our previous topic to you in any way???? A reporter knows that his work is going to be read and handed around for no extra pay. A musician who is depending on the sales of CD's for remuneration for that music might have another point of view. IT IS THEIR perogative to decide how their work will be distributed and how compensation is derived. Music as such is a work from someone who deserves to be compensated for it. To say that because the Record Company is "EVIL" ignores the basic tenat of commerce. Supply and Demand at it's best and most pure. Can't afford it... Steal it.... Seems to run at odds with your earlier rant re: those loser who steal Bandwidth from ThePhoneCompany.... AND BTW, the DJ's and producers I know and work with ALL pay royalties to the artists whose work they sample, Clubs and Bars pay the licensing entities fees for the performance of music for third party profit. IT's THE LAW, and IT ( Copyright Law), unlike telecommunications service agreements, are INTERNATIONAL in their scope and jurisdiction. BMI and ASCAP make it their business to go far and wide to enforce their licensing agreements for their clients. The RIAA is investigating the Naval Academy here in the US. Some of those guys are about to find out what "Honor Code" really means. I might suggest you re-examine your own position for possible conflicts in your logic stream. Those same DJ's and Producers have learned that the real payoff comes from OWNING ALL of the Rights to the MUSIC they create. They have gone so far as to re-record certain musical passages and songs so as to avoid mandatory payments and compulsory fees. It's called playing the game. Kinda what your Customers were doing in their "work-around", to this observer. BTW, the record Companies almost NEVER share in the Live Money generated by the Artists. And Videos aren't free and the buffet and catering for any parties comes out of the Artists money. Record Companies are as evil as your Phone Company, dude.<np Miles Davis.... Sketches of Spain

so why dont they try a strategy that will work and offer me a product i want to buy, until they do thay he cartel can kiss it, afterall its only mp3s i dl, i buy games, and never buy software. clearly they arent serious about getting revenue, anyway if they did backcharge me the bill would be maybe 60stlg, and id pay it. but if they dont offer me a service i want, then im not voluteering the money.

 

[Desslok]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

fug up moron, this is a business, they took advantage, and we are charging them, dont expect anyonther business to get one set of cutomers to cross subsidise your self indulgence, and basically fraud. their kids will get a lesson, and their parents will be show up for being dishonest.

Where's my handy Retard-to-English decoder ring when I need it?[/q]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[gopunk]

i don't like the concept of backcharging... i think if you miss your opportunity, that should be your own fault. but that's just me.

i feel no pity for either side... scammers and phone company alike. i dunno about the uk cable company, but most long distance companies have had their lines paid for a looong time ago and these high long distance prices are just milking customers.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: bsd
so why dont they try a strategy that will work and offer me a product i want to buy, until they do thay he cartel can kiss it, afterall its only mp3s i dl, i buy games, and never buy software. clearly they arent serious about getting revenue, anyway if they did backcharge me the bill would be maybe 60stlg, and id pay it. but if they dont offer me a service i want, then im not voluteering the money.

Yeah, I totally understand. Why don't people try a strategy like car alarms? I only steal four-door sedans, like Altimas and Corollas, I never steal any of the nice cars. I wish people wouldn't get so mad when I carjack either ... clearly they aren't serious about protecting their car if they didn't use their locks. Anyway if they did charge me, the prison term would only be a few months because I could blame it on video games. But if people don't start offering better cars to steal, I'm not turning myself in.

- M4H

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: bsd
I work at a UK Cable Company, and we have an option on the phones where you can block certain types of outgoing call, international is a favourite and mobiles, but you can phone the operator and get a manual connection override, previously these operator connected calls werent charged for.

Recently we stared charging for these calls at 5x the normal rates (they arent meant for non-emergency or long talk time calls, and the company is stacked with debt after upgrading most of the cable boxes to digital) and we realised that people had been taking advantage of freeuinternational calls by getting an operator to connect them manually,:| , and by law we can back charge for three months, so we did, queue one person with a $11100 bill for 1 quarter, and bills I have dealt with of $3200 and several in the region of $1500, you can have a couple of summer holidays for $1500 bucks in thm mediterranean resorts. These assholes then ring up and dispute the bill, etc, then one woman tried to forge proof of a missing payment for $1000. Of course most of them will get the money extracted plus legal and credit agency costs over the next few months. In short, merry christmass!

BSD,
Why have our names in your sig?

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: bsdso why dont they try a strategy that will work and offer me a product i want to buy, until they do thay he cartel can kiss it, afterall its only mp3s i dl, i buy games, and never buy software. clearly they arent serious about getting revenue, anyway if they did backcharge me the bill would be maybe 60stlg, and id pay it. but if they dont offer me a service i want, then im not voluteering the money.

Now, that would be nice and tidy for you wouldn't it? Too bad, it doesn't fall that way. So I take it , you're "just a little guilty", in much the same manner the "Losers" who used the loophole to their advantage were "just a little guilty"?
Well, thats nice

... I'm sure BMI, Moby, Ja-Rule, whoever you ripped off, will be glad to get their .02 cents worth.
The only thing I was hoping to do here was to point out the contradictions that often lie beneath the surface.
In my life, I have found it common that the most vocal party is often covering their own sins by using collaboration as a defense.
Perhaps you might take a moment to actually LISTEN and try to relate to those that are protesting to you instead of forcing the Company's Corporate Propaganda down their gullet. If the only thing that comes from this exchange is that you PAUSE before judging someone, then I am satisfied.
I agree that the Record Companies business model has become cumbersome, but I prefer to think we > the geeks< will construct a better application and business model to replace their outdated one. And do it in a way that doesn't victimize the artist in the process.
Peace, out.....

 

[Desslok]

Why have our names in your sig?[/quote]

Wiper GTF, Desslok, SeisureX, GoBadgering, Milennium, 0roo 0roo, justintw, The Pretence, 308XmasTree:

What I want to know is who the hell is Wiper GTF?

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsdso why dont they try a strategy that will work and offer me a product i want to buy, until they do thay he cartel can kiss it, afterall its only mp3s i dl, i buy games, and never buy software. clearly they arent serious about getting revenue, anyway if they did backcharge me the bill would be maybe 60stlg, and id pay it. but if they dont offer me a service i want, then im not voluteering the money.

Now, that would be nice and tidy for you wouldn't it? Too bad, it doesn't fall that way. So I take it , you're "just a little guilty", in much the same manner the "Losers" who used the loophole to their advantage were "just a little guilty"? Well, thats nice

... I'm sure BMI, Moby, Ja-Rule, whoever you ripped off, will be glad to get their .02 cents worth. The only thing I was hoping to do here was to point out the contradictions that often lie beneath the surface. In my life, I have found it common that the most vocal party is often covering their own sins by using collaboration as a defense. Perhaps you might take a moment to actually LISTEN and try to relate to those that are protesting to you instead of forcing the Company's Corporate Propaganda down their gullet. If the only thing that comes from this exchange is that you PAUSE before judging someone, then I am satisfied. I agree that the Record Companies business model has become cumbersome, but I prefer to think we > the geeks< will construct a better application and business model to replace their outdated one. And do it in a way that doesn't victimize the artist in the process. Peace, out.....

i never said im not contradictory in some things. but we got the revenue because we had the ability to chargew for it and we did, they arent getting the revenue because the strategy that would work for it, ie corner the isps with the bill, is not in their strategy, so ill take the free content thanks.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: bsdso why dont they try a strategy that will work and offer me a product i want to buy, until they do thay he cartel can kiss it, afterall its only mp3s i dl, i buy games, and never buy software. clearly they arent serious about getting revenue, anyway if they did backcharge me the bill would be maybe 60stlg, and id pay it. but if they dont offer me a service i want, then im not voluteering the money.

Now, that would be nice and tidy for you wouldn't it? Too bad, it doesn't fall that way. So I take it , you're "just a little guilty", in much the same manner the "Losers" who used the loophole to their advantage were "just a little guilty"? Well, thats nice

... I'm sure BMI, Moby, Ja-Rule, whoever you ripped off, will be glad to get their .02 cents worth. The only thing I was hoping to do here was to point out the contradictions that often lie beneath the surface. In my life, I have found it common that the most vocal party is often covering their own sins by using collaboration as a defense. Perhaps you might take a moment to actually LISTEN and try to relate to those that are protesting to you instead of forcing the Company's Corporate Propaganda down their gullet. If the only thing that comes from this exchange is that you PAUSE before judging someone, then I am satisfied. I agree that the Record Companies business model has become cumbersome, but I prefer to think we > the geeks< will construct a better application and business model to replace their outdated one. And do it in a way that doesn't victimize the artist in the process. Peace, out.....

i never said im not contradictory in some things. but we got the revenue because we had the ability to chargew for it and we did, they arent getting the revenue because the strategy that would work for it, ie corner the isps with the bill, is not in their strategy, so ill take the free content thanks.

and ill say it again, i dont mind paying the artists money for content, but im not subsidising a bloated carels pocket.

 

[MacBaine]

So basically, this had been happening for 3+ months, NOBODY saw it happening (yeah, right), and then they decide to backcharge for 3 months. Sounds like the phone company planned this to me...

 

[spanky]

$3200 phone bill in three months!?!


thats a lot of phone sex