Options
Love has a price- £912 to be exact.
Sapphire Sun
Posts: 328 Forum Member
✭
Again another stupid teen runs up a huge bill and this time its because he is in love, mummy has forgiven him but then again the poor sap has a face only a mother could love.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071144/The-cost-love-Teen-runs-900-phone-just-month-after.html
He would be better getting rid of the phone and connecting on having a pot noodle and a w*nk if he is that horny.:D
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071144/The-cost-love-Teen-runs-900-phone-just-month-after.html
He would be better getting rid of the phone and connecting on having a pot noodle and a w*nk if he is that horny.:D
0
Comments
Thick as pig shit!
Kids under 16 shouldn't have mobile phones anyway, it's something they really don't need. And with regard to the call costs, it's up to the contract holder to ensure proper usage, not the provider.
What about actually giving people tests to see if they are capable of doing anything before they are let loose with it - like the driving test?
A technology test to stop planktons misusing stuff and building up unpayable bills?
A politics test you have to pass before you vote and screw up the country?
A growing-up with kids test you have to pass before your first sex?
They'd probably have to provide a diagnostic test first to give them any chances of succeeding
What the hell was doing to speak to her for that long anyway? :eek:
I remember back then, think it was 1p a minute with freeserve or something like that. I was allowed 1 hour a night online
I was on AOL back then, and that's when it had the nickname Ain't On Long because of the amount of dropped connections!
First internet provider I ever used was Compuserve
I have unlimited free texts and about 200 free minutes for a tenner a month, it's not the best deal in the world but it suits me. I've never used even half my free minutes.
I never used to switch my computer off back then. I managed one continuous stretch of staying connected on AOL of 34 days in 2003.
Do the Daily Mail have a 'sad people's bollocks' hotline for this type of stuff? Or are there journalists scouring the country for the most inane and pointless stories in existence?
Oh silly question - it's the Daily Mail. My fault.
If you're too dumb to understand what limits are and what happens if you go beyond them stick to pay-as-you-go. Or don't buy a phone altogether. It's time people stopped expecting everyone in the world to run after them wiping their bums -.-
May their Xmas be their worst ever.
Didn't get the details but, IIRC, she might have been updating her twitbook while abroad on holiday with her family.
Obviously, you have to be a bit of a muppet to do it but data tariffs and, particularly, data-roaming are a helluva rip-off.
My missus just got a new Android phone which was supplied with data-roaming enabled and set to auto-update all app's and automatically check emails every hour.
And, of course, O2 send her at least one email a day (full of data-hungry graphics) advertising special offers and other shite.
Takes about 30 seconds to change the settings so it only updates apps and checks mail when connected to a wifi network but I bet the country is full of people with smartphones that're still set to rack up a sizeable bill without the owner realising.
They talked about this on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday, and he mentioned he watched a 3 minute youtube clip whilst in Portugal and it cost him £40!
And to address other comments, true the mother wasn't very intelligent, but if a child has a £28pm tariff - and they know it is a child as a guardian has to sign on their behalf - why wait till they have gone over their monthly spend by almost £600, before issuing a warning?
Children are given mobiles as a matter of course now, for safety. If they have to have their mobiles withdrawn, or cannot afford the upkeep, then not only do telecommunication companies receive less profit, the child's safety is put at risk. Seems a no-brainer to me, that everyone benefits if guardian's are warned immediately a child goes over their tariff.
There was another mother that said her kids have pay-as-you-go phones and when they credit is gone they get the phones taken away and they have to earn them back. Totally agree with that one, teaches them about boundaries and responsibility.
To be fair, the slant was "who is responsible" but your first point does indicate that O2 acknowledge at least some responsibility. I don't think it is totally their fault by the way, I just think everyone wins if they ensure they keep the guardian in the loop.
As to the other mother, she also said when her children had no credit on their mobile they weren't allowed out. I'm not sure that much reliance on technology is a healthy thing to be honest.
Totally agree with this.
There seems to be a general trend for some people to try to absolve themselves of any responsibility and place blame elsewhere. Of course it's not the service provider's responsibility to flag anything up. Their responsibility ends with providing the service. It's up to the customer how they use the service and they're liable for the additional costs arising from any deviation from the contract. You sign an agreement FFS!! That means you AGREE to their terms. Sheesh!! Some people...
Again, though, the thing is that if it's never happened before you might be unaware that it can happen.
I guess we, here at DS, are probably more tech-savvy than the majority of the population but I bet there's heaps of parents who are buying contract smartphones for their kids without even realising just how much it can cost if the data service is abused.
Ah a fellow non mobile user. I haven't topped mine up in about 5 months and haven't suffered any dire consequences. I used to be totally addicted to it, checking it every 5 minutes, waiting for the beep. Its great to go without it.
She has data roaming switched off, as I was stung by that when I first got my android (only once to the tune of $5, though...)