-
Website
http://skydeck.com/blog -
Original page
http://skydeck.com/blog/public-policy/get-ready-for-more-advertising-on-your-cell-phone -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I say just call 1-800-333-9956 and opt out of sharing CPNI. No need to wait for the notice.
Now Verizon is going to unleash paid-spam which they profit from, and allege they can actually control this once they let it loose? It's remarkable how much they fail to understand their customer.
I'm at the breaking point with corporate America and their unrelenting quest for more and more money without any regard for the customer.
In Verizon wisdom (sarcastic) there is no number you can dial for human assistance. Another well-designed Verizon system.
If Verizon was so altruistic about this then they would have made it an automatic opt-out policy instead. They would have also made this easily accessible from the either the regular verizon website or the verizonwireless site but I couldn't find anything there about it.
I am delighted to hear that. Nevertheless, the agreement gives you the right to share CPNI with 'affiliates, vendors and third parties ... to deliver relevant advertising', so you can change your mind at any time.
As I said in the post, we don't have a problem with the change in principle. But it's a big change to make via opt-out. The document is ambiguous. (What does it mean to say that 'if you do not want us to collect, transmit, or use such information, you should not use the services'? Isn't it enough to opt out?) And the part about advertising is buried on page 8.
Best wishes,
Jason
that was my problem; i used my old one (wtf?) and it worked. at least the records they are selling are stale :)
PATROIT Act Title II does not require this type of indemnification for the carriers. All PATROIT Act Title II requests are required to be followed up with the proper warrant/subpoena process. Yes, I agree there are avenues to exploit this system, but hopefully, future changes to PATROIT Act will strengthen the requirement for due process. That said, due process is being served, just not in a timely fashion.
Additionally, the language for information sharing has been in these contracts for decades and is usually worded as "as required by law". This language is not worded that way, but is worded as "third parties" or as "Verizon companies". This looks like a standard boilerplate to allow a Corporation's divisions and operating companies to share customer information between themselves. Something they DO have to indemnify themselves from, lest they become prey to a frivolous lawsuit. Let's consider the the contract between you and your credit card company. This type of information sharing language exists in these types of contracts as these companies must break themselves into compartments for regulatory and tax purposes. An example would be when you call the credit company's call center. The call center is probably a different division or even a different company, but they still have access to your records in order to provide the service. Since Verizon is a utility, they are governed by the BPU's in each state they operate, as well as federal regulatory bodies. I'm sure there is not one monolithic corporation, but many different legal entities to protect the interests of the umbrella corporation.
For Mr. Stoecklein, I too am recalling my Business Law classes and I may be a bit fuzzy, but with the exception of the "third party" clause, I'm sure that the Opt-Out provision is legal. When the contract was entered into with the carrier, there was almost certainly language that defined the carrier as the named entity and all entities (divisions, subsidiaries, etc..) wholly owned, partially owned or joined through working agreements with the corporation. Depending on how that language was crafted, third party companies could fit under the Opt-Out umbrella.
What Mr. Nelson is referring to can be read here...
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneabout...
I agree that the "Third Parties" clause is a little discomforting, but I do not see the language change out of the ordinary to allow the corporation to protect itself. That said, I find out that Verizon is spamming my phone, I'm switching!
If your account has a password associated with it (mine does) the IVR asks you to enter your password. Of course if you have an account password that is non numeric (such as a name) there is no way to enter the password - and you can not opt out."
Actually, you just enter the letters as if you were texting. My password is alpha numeric and worked just fine during the call process. I do wonder if this is enough of a change to warrant cancellation without an ETF charge...
I find your response incredible. You needed all this fine print to 'only share data among VZW companies'? THEN make it an opt-out model. I've been a customer (multi-lines) for over 10 years. I'm so angry about this I'd switch in a heartbeat if not for incurring the $350 in ETF.
Verizon has really screwed the pooch on this one. You and your company should be ashamed.
I'm not going to be a Verizon apologist, but "all this fine print" unfortunately is necessary in the legal world. I agree that contract law is becoming (or some would argue, has become) the joke that patent law now is. But, until proper tort reform has taken place and we can rely upon the simple meaning of things, we will be stuck with this legalese. The reason the company chose the Opt-Out process is because they have probably added all of this garbage to indemnify themselves, but they believe that their current contract appropriately described this "information sharing" process to the customer. Opt-Out is obviously, less expensive and provides significantly higher "buy-in" than does an Opt-In system.
This is probably a law department that had way too much time and money and is trying to be proactive. That said, if Verizon DOES begin to use this "information sharing" clause to spam my cell phone, I will be one of the first to cancel all my dealings with them. That means my home fios service (Comcast left the cable from the pole to my house, so it shouldn't take long to reconnect), my wireless and my office T1.
I'm not defending opt-out vs. opt-in; but the FCC rules were and are the rules - and we're playing by the rules. No shame in that.
(I have already opted-out mechanically on my 4 existing phone lines.)
I intend to vote with my wallet and take my dollars elsewhere when our contract expires if Verizon continues on this path.
Are there any lawyers out there who can, in layman's terms, explain how Verizon can change the terms of a signed contract and then hold the customer to it with coersive penalties if one terminates the service?
I'm about ready to bolt.
-Fed Up
This “mobile devise” as it's now referenced is a far cry from a cell phone of ago.. Think about it, we started with color screens, then cameras, now recorders, constant connectivity to the backbone of the net, domains with .mobi..Aggghh.... Do you really think it's going to stop a progression path forward so in 18 months of today, I can run, control, switch, research, download, play, type, laugh my ass off, or simply talk…..?
Advertising to your mobile devise is going to happen no matter what, it's as basic as gravity. The consumer culture needs fuel, that fuel is eyeball to impulse or calculated action. You achieve it in your brain by advertising.... Sucks doesn’t it.
Knowing that ads will be delivered to my cell phone, I am not going to put my efforts in stopping the battle; but gathering expediential support, to limit the level of intrusive spawned behavior like “pops” to your cell phone!!!!
The mobile revolution has finally hit the US..
How long before I get adds from for verizon with every text message I receive from a friend... or directly from verizon.
Hmmm... how long till companies start claiming advertising rights on their own numbers and such.
Nya nya nya! F--- you, you whiny customers!
Outrage: An Open Letter to the FCC
http://networkinstruments.wordpress.com/2007/10...
They are looking to share CPNI which excludes your phone number, name and address. We can debate whether or not we want them to do that but sharing CPNI is FAR FAR different than selling your phone number to telemarketers.
--Paul
PS: the porn site texts that i received...i called Verizon back and found out that I was CHARGED FOR THEM.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/whistl...