On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:55 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Honestly, people like this family drive me nuts. I think AT+T
> deserves to be
> paid, as the family signed a contract , agreed to their terms, and
> then used
> the product. Why should AT+T not be paid? Read your contracts,
> people. If
> you don't like the terms, don't sign the document.
Because it is not always intentional. My son sends hundreds of text
messages, and we bought an "unlimited" plan so as not to have to worry
about running up huge bills. One of the girls he met recently actually
lives outside Toronto, and thus has a Canadian phone address. She was
here in the US, and he was texting her over the course of several
days. This resulted in a fairly large charge for "international"
texting.
He did not intend to text internationally. Canadian numbers are
identical in format to US numbers. There is nothing that tells him
that he is incurring additional charges.
So please don't assume that anyone who incurs unexpected charges are
idiots or moochers.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
