Canadian dude opens mailbox to C$85,000 cell phone bill
12 comments
Filed in Carriers - International, News
You hear horror stories about carriers offering "unlimited" data plans, only to find that they aren’t exactly unlimited. Most are surprised with a bill that’s a couple hundred dollars. But Piotr Staniaszek, an oil worker in Alberta, Canada, got the surprise of his life when is bill read somewhere in the neighborhood of C$85,000. Wtf? Turns out, he used his unlimited plan to tether his phone to his laptop, which Bell claims is a violation of the plan’s, uh, unlimitedness. They’ve since reduced the bill to C$3,400, but that’s still a crazy amount for a guy who, quite frankly, probably needs the internet just to get through some grueling, cold days. And nights.
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 12:19 pm, S Said:
I’m pretty sure he was *hard* at work on his laptop to rack up that kind of a bill…
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 12:55 pm, galvatron Said:
Who was this robbers or tell us were to stick it? Unlimited with a cap time to sue for false avertising an the bil forfited. But also read the fineprint.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 1:25 pm, H Said:
They shouldn’t of credited back anything. He was trying to use it for something that is specifically listed as a violation of terms, and using it to download “High Def movies”. Everyone is so quick to point fingers at bell cause their the big company here but they did no wrong in my eyes. its a simple case of what happens when people try to take advantage of what they THINK might be a loophole. live and learn.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 1:55 pm, Anthony to the S. Said:
That’s a disgusting amount of money for some data.
http://paidandpopular.blogspot.com
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 3:11 pm, nitesmoke Said:
Wow that beats my stores record for highest bill. Our record was 6500 for a guy who’s wife talked a ton in Mexico. 85000 is good number to use the word obscene. On a side note, $82000 credit is badass by any standred
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm, Dirk Said:
This is most likely a guy who has the HTC Touch with “unlimited mobile browser” feature wich has unlimited data on the phone but does not include tethering. It says so right in the contract and the sales rep probably didnt mention that fact.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 14, 2007 @ 5:19 pm, Ash Said:
I thought that the Bell ads were pretty clear about it being unlimited use of the mobile phone browser only.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 15, 2007 @ 3:04 am, Jeff B. Said:
w00t w00t!! Taking lessons from att!! w00t w00t!!
Naw really, that sucks man. Hopefully Bell will figure out that’s the dumbest thing to ever do and alleviate the bill.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 15, 2007 @ 10:46 am, tommy Said:
that is wrong, i dont think noone is blaming the company. unlimited is unlimited, look in websters dictionary. that means there is no restrictions to usage. it is a clear case of false advertising. any attorney will tell that language matters in a contract. if the language of an agreement states unlimited, then that means unlimited. it is the companies fault for misleading people with the usage of language.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 15, 2007 @ 2:36 pm, Dirk Said:
It’s “unlimited mobile browser”. Not unlimited data. The news story just probably either doesnt know what its talking about or is hyping it up. Bell does have an unlimited data package but only on data cards. Since in the story it says he was tethering it means that he does not have a data card and cannot have “unlimited data” but only unlimited mobile browser wich is very different. It is his fault for not knowing what he is doing.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 16, 2007 @ 3:28 pm, Demik1020 Said:
ITS WRONG!we know to read the fine print for details like a cup on the data because, were into these kinda of things, for the everyday user, they read/or are told unlimited and think UNLIMITED. lets be real when he went to buy the phone im sure no one really broke down what unlimited really ment. someone wanted the commission on the phone and told him enough to get it sold. it is what it is.
Permalink | Reply
On Dec 18, 2007 @ 1:43 am, David Said:
woah. thats all i can say.
Permalink | Reply