Why is Verizon acting like my credit card to third party companies? Who else do you let do this? You do raise a valid point though, if Verizon can't verify it's me on the phone when they're checking in to verify these charges with me personally... then they should just not allow charges this way.
And again, I advise that all readers that have been impacted by this snake oil B.S. refuse the charges and complain to the FCC because the service provider is at fault here. I don't care how long the charges go on before you first notice them, you've been defrauded. Small fortunes are being made defrauding people through a system that has no safeguards and the Service Provider is complicit by not instituting a very very simple policy: don't charge the customer for any services you're not the one providing. I.E. the default should be that premium messaging is blocked.
abacadab wrote:And again, I advise that all readers that have been impacted by this snake oil B.S. refuse the charges and complain to the FCC because the service provider is at fault here. I don't care how long the charges go on before you first notice them, you've been defrauded. Small fortunes are being made defrauding people through a system that has no safeguards and the Service Provider is complicit by not instituting a very very simple policy: don't charge the customer for any services you're not the one providing. I.E. the default should be that premium messaging is blocked.
Why would you complain to the FCC, then, as THEY ARE COMPLICIT by allowing ALL cell providers to do exactly this?
Because the FCC:
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States."
If the Service Provider doesn't see fit to do the right thing, you've got to talk to the people they answer to.
If the FCC proves ineffective you begin talking to your elected officials that the FCC answers to, because your elected officials answer to you the people.
abacadab wrote:Because the FCC:
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States."
If the Service Provider doesn't see fit to do the right thing, you've got to talk to the people they answer to.
And as this regulating body, has given ALL providers the ability to do just what they are doing. Providing a service that several people want, with a method of blocking this service if it is not wanted.
The actual amount of fraudulent charges is more likely miniscule compared to the amount of actual charges. It is more likely that a person actually signs up for something, decides they don't like/want it, and then FRAUDULENTLY says that they were wrongfully charged for a service that they actually requested.
Again, where else do we allow this loophole creating an environment for those who are actually being defrauded? This appeal to tradition argument is not going to get traction with me. As the regulating body the FCC has made a mistake by allowing this practice or it just hasn't registered with them yet that they need to make a ruling on this. It's up to the complaints of the people to force them to rectify that mistake.
Just because that's the way it is and all Service Providers allow it through their system does not in anyway justify the practice.
abacadab wrote:Again, where else do we allow this loophole creating an environment for those who are actually being defrauded? This appeal to tradition argument is not going to get traction with me. As the regulating body the FCC has made a mistake by allowing this practice or it just hasn't registered with them yet that they need to make a ruling on this. It's up to the complaints of the people to force them to rectify that mistake.
Just because that's the way it is and all Service Providers allow it through their system does not in anyway justify the practice.
Credit card fraud comes to mind... Which is actually fraud, not just someone changing their mind after signing up for something and then yelling FRAUD when they decide that they do not like something.
Many people don't think that it is a mistake that cell carriers make it easy for people to sign up for something, rather than going to the trouble of calling Verizon 1st to allow the charges.
You are correct that this is the way it is. Maybe that is true because the majority of people like the convenience, with the option of opting out if you want.
Yes, creditors do tend to act like creditors, don't they? The question is what other provider of a service do we let carry over charges from third party company's without express permission. Who else gets to act like they're our creditor rather than our service provider? Hell, our creditors at least require a signature or a pin. And they're held to stipulations about removing scamming charges and unauthorized charges because otherwise we would find them complicit with the scammers.
How successful do you think these phone based scammers would be if they had to get credit card information rather than just phone numbers? If a Service Provider is going to step into the Creditor arena, they need to be held to the same standards... or... just be a Service Provider and leave the charges to the Creditors.
abacadab wrote:Yes, creditors do tend to act like creditors, don't they? The question is what other provider of a service do we let carry over charges from third party company's without express permission. Who else gets to act like they're our creditor rather than our service provider? Hell, our creditors at least require a signature or a pin. And they're held to stipulations about removing scamming charges and unauthorized charges because otherwise we would find them complicit with the scammers.
How successful do you think these phone based scammers would be if they had to get credit card information rather than just phone numbers? If a Service Provider is going to step into the Creditor arena, they need to be held to the same standards... or... just be a Service Provider and leave the charges to the Creditors.
3 Steps to solving your problem.
1) Read the contract you signed with Verizon where it explains that third parties can bill you through your cell acct if given permission BY YOU
2) Block premium messaging on your cell account since you clearly don't wish to use the program.
3) Grow up!! (and perhaps take a bit of time to understand how today's technology works)
I think you'll find that this simple 3 step process solves your problems. Have a good day.
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
