Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

Thread: Is VText.COM a wireless spam gateway? Verizon, TXT Msg SPAM and VTEXT.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0

    Angry Is VText.COM a wireless spam gateway? Verizon, TXT Msg SPAM and VTEXT.

    For over a month now, I've recieved Text Message spam on my Verizon phone.

    I contacted customer support and _at first_ they ONLY mentioned 2 draconian alternatives to solve this problem: changing my phone number, or blocking all text messages.

    Then I searched the internet and found out that there is a VERIZON Website: http://vtext.com

    I found out that I could block some types of text messages.

    Why didn't Verizon initially tell me about this? Doesn't customer service have standard responses about what to tell its customers in regards to Spam?

    Were they only mentioning the extremes of either blocking all text messages or changing my phone number, in order to push many customers to just accept the SPAM charges as a cost of keeping one's number and using text messaging?

    However, what was also shocking was that this VERIZON website allows anonymous, non-logged in users to send a text message to any verizon wireless phone number.

    I tested this by sending text messages to my phone, without logging in to the site.

    Therefore, Verizon has created, owns, and operates a website (http://VTEXT.COM) that easily and freely allows any party to send spam. And then Verizon charges customers.

    Therefore there are several unethical and predatory, anti-consumer practices:
    1) Verizon did not inform me about the existence of their spam gateway
    2) Verizon did not inform me about more subtle ways of blocking some spam.
    3) --especially about how to block spam coming from their vtext website.
    (Verizon customer service only informed me about the options on Vtext.com, after I had confronted them about it, in an email to them.)
    4) Verizon has created a tool that allows anonymous parties to spam its customers and thereby profits from it.

    I wonder how many millions of dollars Verizon has profitted from this pro-spam policy?

    Wouldn't these Verizon policies that profit from spam, be ripe for the target of a class action lawsuit?
    Last edited by jspark; 11-01-2007 at 03:52 PM. Reason: to make title more to the point.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    20,262
    Feedback Score
    0
    Just because one (or even some) CSR didn't mention the option of trying to use some functionalities provided at http://www.vtext.com does not mean that it's not something that VZW tells customers about (it really means a lot of CSRs need better training and/or just have to be better employees overall). There are many people who know about this site without ever contacting anyone at VZW, so the information is available out there and people have been and are getting informed about it. The web site is a pretty normal one and provides a way for people to contact others on VZW. It's no different than many web sites that are available out there, or, better yet, most of the messenger and even mail applications that now allow to send messages to phones as well. There's nothing weird or deceptive or even uncommon/unusual about it really.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,915
    Phones
    N/A
    Droid 2 Global
    LG VX9800 "The V" (backup)
    Carriers
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think the CSR simply didn't know. I've never gotten what I'd consider a really bad CSR, but some definitely are better than others.

    Secondly, supposedly VZW tries to filter out spam; I expect they'd try to filter out spam sent via vtext.com too. Some spammer is probably getting tricky and bypassing it somehow. Hopefully CS noted on your account your getting spam, so someone within the company will know the spam filters aren't working.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0

    Will this require a class action lawsuit?

    Thanks for the responses.

    The fundamental issue with this is that Verizon has created a SPAMing gateway with access to its customers.

    At 15 cents a spam, it is more than annoying.

    It is more than strange, that Verizon does not even require senders of txt messages on their to log in. VText does not even require the use of captchas to prevent the use of automated scripts.

    Why, if most forums, such as this one, require registration and other measures to prevent spamming to its users, doesn't Verizon do the same with Vtext.com? -- Especially when every spam txt message sent from their site incurs a cost upon its customers.

    Imagine if 3rd party got your mobile phone#, and then sent hundreds of text message spam to your phone by using VText? They could do this with clever automated scripts that post to that site, or by hiring people to type the stuff into that website, en mass.

    What if someone held a grudge against you, and used the Vtext site to send nasty & explicit spam to your phone? and you were charged for recieving every unsolicited message.

    Verizon has refuses to issue refunds.

    They should not charge its customers for recieving spam from a site that they created and control.

    If they want to allow people to send text messages from a website where it incurs costs upon the reciever, their site should require registration and identification. And the reciever should have to opt in to be charged for those unsolicited messages, rather than have to do research without Verizon's notification, in order to opt out.

    Verizon's VText.com site is wide open to spammers for an obviously rotten reasons of profit. And it is unethical.

    This is issue is wide open to a class action lawsuit. -- unless they issue refunds.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    20,262
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jspark
    Thanks for the responses.

    The fundamental issue with this is that Verizon has created a SPAMing gateway with access to its customers.

    At 15 cents a spam, it is more than annoying.

    It is more than strange, that Verizon does not even require senders of txt messages on their to log in. VText does not even require the use of captchas to prevent the use of automated scripts.

    Why, if most forums, such as this one, require registration and other measures to prevent spamming to its users, doesn't Verizon do the same with Vtext.com? -- Especially when every spam txt message sent from their site incurs a cost upon its customers.

    Imagine if 3rd party got your mobile phone#, and then sent hundreds of text message spam to your phone by using VText? They could do this with clever automated scripts that post to that site, or by hiring people to type the stuff into that website, en mass.

    What if someone held a grudge against you, and used the Vtext site to send nasty & explicit spam to your phone? and you were charged for recieving every unsolicited message.

    Verizon has refuses to issue refunds.

    They should not charge its customers for recieving spam from a site that they created and control.

    If they want to allow people to send text messages from a website where it incurs costs upon the reciever, their site should require registration and identification. And the reciever should have to opt in to be charged for those unsolicited messages, rather than have to do research without Verizon's notification, in order to opt out.

    Verizon's VText.com site is wide open to spammers for an obviously rotten reasons of profit. And it is unethical.

    This is issue is wide open to a class action lawsuit. -- unless they issue refunds.
    There are many sites out there that allow to send messages to cell phones, not to mention that email could be used to send messages to cell phones, and pretty much most IM applications. This isn't something that VZW has created on their own and is responsible for, it's out there everywhere basically. How would you go about all of that? I think at best the question isn't about these sites or applications that allow the sending of messages, but with the nature of receiving messages on the phone--that you are charged immediately no matter the nature of the message and whether you expected or wanted it. That's really what would be at the center of the issue, if anything. Now, how that could be dealt with or resolved, is a somewhat different and a more complex question. Perhaps better controls in regards to blocking unwanted messages (many phones now allow blocking those that are not from contacts, and/or doing it through some sort of online account management), perhaps it's about making incoming messages free, perhaps something else. But it's certainly not as simple as just shutting down sites and applications that allow sending of messages, nor is that really the "problem" to begin with (it's much more likely that the spam you and others have received didn't even come from/via any such web sites, let alone VZW's one).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Posts
    2,412
    Phones
    Droid Maxx
    Retired: Many Motorola, such as DPC550,StarTac,V720. Also BB 9530,9850 (sigh)
    Carrier
    Verizon Wireless (1994, GTE MobileNet)
    Feedback Score
    0
    As mentioned in a previous post, you don't need a web site to send SMS spam. Just blast the garbage to <ten-digit-VZW-number>@vtext.com as e-mail. The other providers have similar portals.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesH
    As mentioned in a previous post, you don't need a web site to send SMS spam. Just blast the garbage to <ten-digit-VZW-number>@vtext.com as e-mail. The other providers have similar portals.
    Why did they make it so easy to send spam, and thereby let anonymous parties to incur potentially unlimited costs on their customers?

    This sort of poor tracking and easily abused system is something that Verizon, and the other carriers, intentionally designed and planned. By making it so easy and free to send this spam, Verizon should be held liable/responsible for spam coming from the poor security and safeguards in their system.

    Verizon's interfaces completely avoids indentification of the sender when it could be technically easy to require it.

    If the consumer has no choice but to pay when recieving an unsolicted message, the consumer should, at the least, have the right to know who incurred this cost.

    Express Prior Authorization

    Under the FCC’s rules, commercial e-mail messages may only be sent to your wireless device via the Internet if you have provided your “express prior authorization.” Commercial e-mail senders may request that you provide this authorization orally or in writing (e-mail or letter). They must tell you the name of the entity that will be sending the messages and, if different, the name of the entity advertising products or services. All commercial e-mail messages sent to you after you’ve given your authorization must allow you to revoke your authorization, or “opt out” of receiving future messages. You must be allowed to opt out the same way you “opted in,” including by dialing a short code. Senders have 10 days to honor requests to opt out.

    Wireless Domain Name List

    To help enforce its ban, the FCC required all wireless service providers to provide all Internet domain names used to transmit electronic messages to wireless devices. The FCC published this list on its Web site at www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/DomainNameDownload.html. Non-exempt senders of commercial e-mail messages are prohibited from sending them to any Internet domain name on this list without the recipient’s express prior authorization. These senders have 30 days from the date the domain name is posted on the FCC site to stop sending unauthorized commercial e-mail to Internet addresses containing the domain name. Wireless service providers must add new domain names to the FCC’s list within 30 days of activating them.
    The VText.com website, and the method you describe above, are not in compliance with FCC regulations. And Wireless access interface easily allows spammers to illegally evade these regulations. There is zero due diligence in this regard.

    The wireless carriers have created VText.com, and other websites and methods, as a back-door for spammers to bypass the hurdles mentioned in the Wireless Domain Name List paragraph.

    And in this design implementation Verizon, et al, have most likely incurred millions of dollars in unwanted and unsolicited charges upon their customers.

    These wireless carriers have profited due to their granting free license to spammers in the use of Verizon's (et al's) software interface, and the empowerment of spamming practices.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz
    I think the CSR simply didn't know. I've never gotten what I'd consider a really bad CSR, but some definitely are better than others.

    Secondly, supposedly VZW tries to filter out spam; I expect they'd try to filter out spam sent via vtext.com too. Some spammer is probably getting tricky and bypassing it somehow. Hopefully CS noted on your account your getting spam, so someone within the company will know the spam filters aren't working.

    I've contacted Customer Service several times, on the phone and by email.
    Every time, they gave me the same response: Either block all text messaging, OR change my phone number.

    This indicates that there is a standard company policy or a standard set of information that CSR's are to give to customers who complain about txt message spam.

    Only until I mentioned VText did they mention Vtext back to me. None of the CSR's even acknowledged the fact that VText could have been the source of my spam. In fact, every time, they completely did not respond to those facts.

    If Verizon creates a spamming gateway, then Verizon is responsible for the spam. They should not charge customers for spam that THEIR servers recieve from the internet and then transmit to the customers' phones.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    20,262
    Feedback Score
    0
    Are web sites and applications that allow sending of messages to phones there specifically or even at least primarily for spammers? Of course not. Can they be abused by spammers, sure, that's a possibility. Does that make the developers or providers of those web sites or applications evil or in some sort of conspiracy? Of course not, that's just silly. Could, and/or even should, steps be taken to improve the methods and overall policies regarding phone messaging be changed/modified/updated in particular since we are charged for them, more than likely. Is there something on the level of criminal or civil abuse here though, again, that's really REALLY stretching it. Not to mention, once again, how many applications and sites out there allow this kind of thing. How exactly would you go after everyone? This is fairly similar to your cell phone number, anyone can call you and it can cost you minutes, so would we be going after all telephone providers and manufacturers to prevent them from calling cell phone numbers? Again, that's just silly. In the end, this whole thread unfortunately appreas to be much more of a rant than anything else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,363
    Phones
    Apple iPhone
    Apple iPhone 4
    Motorola Droid
    Carriers
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jspark
    I've contacted Customer Service several times, on the phone and by email.
    Every time, they gave me the same response: Either block all text messaging, OR change my phone number.

    This indicates that there is a standard company policy or a standard set of information that CSR's are to give to customers who complain about txt message spam.

    Only until I mentioned VText did they mention Vtext back to me. None of the CSR's even acknowledged the fact that VText could have been the source of my spam. In fact, every time, they completely did not respond to those facts.

    If Verizon creates a spamming gateway, then Verizon is responsible for the spam. They should not charge customers for spam that THEIR servers recieve from the internet and then transmit to the customers' phones.
    To say it was all an intentional conspiracy created by the monopolistic conglamorates is a just your way of saying YOU DONT KNOW. All you did was (or all you said you did) go look up the FCC regulations and talk to customer service about getting your text messages refunded. You pretty much did what 90% of all americans would do if they were in your shoes, and theres nothing wrong with that. the quote below is from the FCC. You can write your complaint there. but your rant about how its basically one big conspiracy and a jab at your civil liberties is a bit of a stretch. You also have to be able to prove that the unwanted text messages did not originate from an auto-dialer and you had no prior contact with the company. If you really want to make that claim, go look into their system, do some research on how they track text messages and figure out if there is a way to create a SPAM filter for text messages. More than likely there isnt. Hell, even email filters do not do that great of a job. You may also want to contact Verizon to see if they really are giving the FCC the domain names or if they are just blowing it off.

    In all honesty, you are just pi55ed off which is understandable but you seem to be more about screaming about the problem than doing.

    To all those that want to see what the psycho is talking about:

    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html
    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/canspam.html

    Quote Originally Posted by FCC
    The FCC’s CAN-SPAM Rules

    The FCC’s ban on sending unwanted e-mail messages to wireless devices applies to all “commercial messages.” The CAN-SPAM Act defines commercial messages as those for which the primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. The FCC’s ban does not cover “transactional or relationship” messages, or notices to facilitate a transaction you have already agreed to. These messages would include statements about an existing account or warranty information about a product you’ve purchased. The FCC’s ban also does not cover non-commercial messages, such as messages about candidates for public office.

    The FCC’s ban covers messages sent to cell phones and pagers, if the message uses an Internet address that includes an Internet domain name (usually the part of the address after the individual or electronic mailbox name and the “@” symbol). The FCC’s ban does not cover “short messages,” typically sent from one mobile phone to another, that do not use an Internet address. Also, the FCC’s ban does not cover e-mail messages that you have forwarded from your computer to your wireless device (but the FTC’s rules may restrict such messages).

    .
    .
    .
    The CAN-SPAM Act supplements some consumer protections already put into place by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Under the TCPA the FCC and FTC established the national Do-Not-Call list. This list contains telephone numbers that telemarketers are prohibited from calling unless they have an established business relationship with the called party or are otherwise exempt. FCC rules prohibit sending unwanted text messages to your wireless phone number if they are sent using an autodialer, or if you have placed that number on the national Do-Not-Call list.

    Even if you have placed your wireless phone number on the national Do-Not-Call list, the TCPA does not protect you from receiving commercial messages sent to that number if:

    you have given your prior consent to the sender, or;

    you have an established business relationship with the sender.

    Express Prior Authorization

    Under the FCC’s rules, commercial e-mail messages may only be sent to your wireless device via the Internet if you have provided your “express prior authorization.” Commercial e-mail senders may request that you provide this authorization orally or in writing (e-mail or letter). They must tell you the name of the entity that will be sending the messages and, if different, the name of the entity advertising products or services. All commercial e-mail messages sent to you after you’ve given your authorization must allow you to revoke your authorization, or “opt out” of receiving future messages. You must be allowed to opt out the same way you “opted in,” including by dialing a short code. Senders have 10 days to honor requests to opt out.

    FTC Rules/FCC Enforcement

    The FCC can enforce the FTC’s restrictions on any commercial e-mail message sent to a non-wireless device, such as a desktop computer, if:

    the sender is a communications company (telephone, radio, paging, cable, or television company), or;

    the message advertises or promotes a product or service of a communications company.

    The FTC’s rules require:

    Identification – Unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to non-wireless accounts must be clearly identified as a solicitation or advertisement for products or services.

    Offering a Way to Reject Future Messages – Commercial e-mail senders must provide easily-accessible, legitimate ways for recipients to reject future messages from that sender.

    Return Address – All commercial e-mail, and e-mail considered transactional and relationship messages (about existing transactions), must contain legitimate return e-mail addresses, as well as the sender’s postal address.

    Subject Lines – Commercial e-mail senders must use subject lines that are accurate. Using misleading or bogus subject lines to trick readers into opening messages is prohibited.

    State Anti-Spam Laws

    The CAN-SPAM Act is intended to preempt – or replace – state anti-spam laws, but states are allowed to enforce the parts of the CAN-SPAM Act restricting non-wireless SPAM. Also state laws prohibiting fraudulent or deceptive acts and computer crimes remain in effect.

    What to Do If You Receive an Unwanted Commercial Message on Your Wireless Device

    You may file a complaint with the FCC if you receive:

    an unwanted commercial message sent to a wireless device; or

    a telephone solicitation made to a wireless device for which the phone number is registered on the national Do-Not-Call list; or

    any autodialed text message on your wireless device, or an unwanted commercial message to a non-wireless device from a telecommunications company or advertising a telecommunications company’s products or services.

    You can file your complaint using our on-line complaint Form 1088 found at www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html; e-mailing fccinfo@fcc.gov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

    Federal Communications Commission
    Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
    Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
    445 12th Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20554.

    What to Include In Your Complaint

    The best way to provide all the information needed for the FCC to process your complaint about unwanted commercial messages to a wireless device is to complete fully the on-line complaint Form 1088. The opening pages of the Form 1088 will direct you to the Form 1088G, which asks specific questions relevant to unwanted commercial messages to wireless devices. If you do not use the on-line complaint Form 1088, your complaint, at a minimum, should indicate:

    your name, address, e-mail address, and phone number where you can be reached;

    the phone number or e-mail address of the wireless device to which the message was sent, and, if a phone number, whether it is on the national Do-Not-Call list;

    date and time of the message;

    whether the message advertises or promotes a commercial product or service;

    any information to help identify the sender or the individual or company whose products or services are being advertised or promoted, and whether any of this information was provided in the message;

    whether the message provided any contact information to allow you to opt out of receiving future messages;

    whether you gave the sender permission to send you messages; and

    a description of any actions you took NOT to receive messages from the sender or individual or company whose products or services are being advertised and when you took them.

    What You Can Do to Prevent Spam to Your Wireless Device in Particular and Spam in General

    You can reduce the amount of spam you receive by doing the following:

    Put your wireless phone number on the national Do-Not-Call list, and distribute it sparingly.

    Don’t display your wireless phone number or e-mail address in public. This includes newsgroups, chat rooms, Web sites, or membership directories.

    If you open an unwanted message, send a stop or opt out message in response.

    Check the privacy policy when submitting your wireless phone number or e-mail address to any Web site. Find out if the policy allows the company to sell your information.

    Contact your wireless or Internet service provider about unwanted messages.

    Before you transmit personal information through a Web site, make sure you read through and understand the entire transmitting form. Some Web sites allow you to opt out of receiving e-mail from partners – but you may have to uncheck a preselected box if you want to do so.

    You may want to use two e-mail addresses – one for personal messages and one for newsgroups and chat rooms. Also, consider using a disposable e-mail address service that creates a separate e-mail address that forwards messages to your permanent account. If one of the disposable addresses starts to receive spam, you can turn it off without affecting your permanent address.

    Try using a longer and unique e-mail address. Your choice of e-mail addresses may affect the amount of spam that you receive. A common name like “mjones” may get more spam than a more unique name like da110x110. Of course, it’s harder to remember an unusual e-mail address.

    Use an e-mail filter. Some service providers offer a tool that filters out potential spam or channels spam into a bulk e-mail folder. You may also want to consider filtering capabilities when choosing an Internet service provider.
    ** i didnt like the way [ code ] displayed it.
    Last edited by R3GUL8OR; 11-02-2007 at 03:03 PM.
    -------------------------
    Woot Woot!
    Air Force
    Colorado Springs, Colorado

    First Sticky: 2/23/07 Samsung Forum

    ^^PREMIUM HOFO SUPPORTER^^
    -------------------------

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade DM
    Are web sites and applications that allow sending of messages to phones there specifically or even at least primarily for spammers? Of course not. Can they be abused by spammers, sure, that's a possibility. Does that make the developers or providers of those web sites or applications evil or in some sort of conspiracy? Of course not, that's just silly. Could, and/or even should, steps be taken to improve the methods and overall policies regarding phone messaging be changed/modified/updated in particular since we are charged for them, more than likely. Is there something on the level of criminal or civil abuse here though, again, that's really REALLY stretching it. Not to mention, once again, how many applications and sites out there allow this kind of thing. How exactly would you go after everyone? This is fairly similar to your cell phone number, anyone can call you and it can cost you minutes, so would we be going after all telephone providers and manufacturers to prevent them from calling cell phone numbers? Again, that's just silly. In the end, this whole thread unfortunately appreas to be much more of a rant than anything else.
    At least this response isn't a raging personal attack like umm...

    I don't think I'm expecting too much, nor raising the bar. This is a point & line of argument that warrants further examination.

    Unlike the internet, which passes through the servers of many companies and organizations, (for example) Verizon creates a website (or a mail gateway) that directly recieves information to their server, and uses their server to use their wholly controlled network.

    They OWN a website (for example) that does not ask who you are, and actually lets any post through to your phone, where you are charged without choice.

    Many, many websites guard against spam posts. Why doesn't Verizon (for example)? Is it that hard to hinder spam posts? In fact VText's design is way out of the norm and makes it easy!

    Just because other websites could possibly be used to send spam, does not excuse Verizon (or other wireless companies, for example) for not even trying to block spam from their OWN WEBSITE (or mail gateway) which is directly contected to their wireless network.

    Nobody owns the internet. But Verizon owns and completely controls their network. That's a big, big difference in terms of responsibility (& perhaps liability). And add to that -- they charge customers for recieving these messages.

    And they automatically opt-in customers to be open to spam from their website and their mail gateway. And don't tell them if the spam is Originating from these corporate servers, nor take any responsiblity for it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Near Padre Island
    Posts
    1,324
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jspark
    At least this response isn't a raging personal attack like umm...

    I don't think I'm expecting too much, nor raising the bar. This is a point & line of argument that warrants further examination.

    Unlike the internet, which passes through the servers of many companies and organizations, (for example) Verizon creates a website (or a mail gateway) that directly recieves information to their server, and uses their server to use their wholly controlled network.

    They OWN a website (for example) that does not ask who you are, and actually lets any post through to your phone, where you are charged without choice.

    Many, many websites guard against spam posts. Why doesn't Verizon (for example)? Is it that hard to hinder spam posts? In fact VText's design is way out of the norm and makes it easy!

    Just because other websites could possibly be used to send spam, does not excuse Verizon (or other wireless companies, for example) for not even trying to block spam from their OWN WEBSITE (or mail gateway) which is directly contected to their wireless network.

    Nobody owns the internet. But Verizon owns and completely controls their network. That's a big, big difference in terms of responsibility (& perhaps liability). And add to that -- they charge customers for recieving these messages.

    And they automatically opt-in customers to be open to spam from their website and their mail gateway. And don't tell them if the spam is Originating from these corporate servers, nor take any responsiblity for it.

    I'm not really understanding what you're trying to accomplish here. Whining on a forum or blog post has never gotten anything done, try whining to the media instead.

    You're the first person I've ever seen complaining about vtext.com. Do you know for a FACT that your incoming spam is from somebody abusing vtext.com? Honestly, I think it's coming from the fact that you were irresponsible with your phone number and looking for somebody to blame.

    Oh, and if you even THINK about coming back with something like "you're a bad reflection on vzw, whyd they hire you, blah blah blah", read my effing signature block.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    a previous generation
    Posts
    8,923
    Phone
    Incredible
    Carrier
    Assimilated on Aug 7 1993
    Feedback Score
    0
    is this thread an example of what my parents meant by smoking dope makes folks paranoid?
    op, did you use the vtext site to block the spammer? you can block all texts coming from vtext.com and that would solve your fear
    the United States is the land of the FREE because of the BRAVE!! Thank You to all who serve or have served and their families in the United States armed services!! Your sacrifices are NOT in vain may God continue to bless America
    For God so loves YOU, He gave His only Son....John 3:16

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by raduque
    I'm not really understanding what you're trying to accomplish here. Whining on a forum or blog post has never gotten anything done, try whining to the media instead.

    You're the first person I've ever seen complaining about vtext.com. Do you know for a FACT that your incoming spam is from somebody abusing vtext.com? Honestly, I think it's coming from the fact that you were irresponsible with your phone number and looking for somebody to blame.

    Oh, and if you even THINK about coming back with something like "you're a bad reflection on vzw, whyd they hire you, blah blah blah", read my effing signature block.
    I see... You don't want to read my complaint. It bothers you, for some weird reason. ie: "Don't complain here. I don't want to read it." (Despite the fact that this is a forum about Verizon discussions!) So you & your ilk, want to stamp out any discussion that is potentially negative about Verizon on a public forum?

    And "blah blah"... wow. Your post, as well as R3GUL8OR, reflect upon yourselves. Do you guys work for Verizon? Is that it?

    BTW, since I changed the settings to block web messages, the spam stopped coming.
    "...It's your fault why don't you prove where it came from"
    Duh. Can Verizon tell me where the spam came from? They won't.

    If they don't know either, then it could have come from their website, or from their email server.

    The only information I got on my bill is that it came from : 0000006245

    If it could have come from their server, then they are responsible.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    And also, it's not just about my personal, unfair spam charges, which they won't refund.

    It's about being fair to customers.

    Keeping their own txt messaging portals wide open, charging customers, being completely unhelpful in warning customers about this, and not initially volunteering information on how to blocking this, this is wrong on principle.

    Maybe it only matters to those who care about principle and business ethics.

    It makes more and more consumers like me, view Verizon and other wireless carriers like them, in a more and more negative light. After finding out about their no-refund/charge for spam policy, and the way that they set up their wide open spam magnet gateways, it is hard to deny how offensively unfair and perhaps hostile they are to the interests of their customers.
    Last edited by jspark; 11-02-2007 at 04:10 PM. Reason: grammar

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks