Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

Which is what Verizon promised, then went back on because "unlimited really means*"

There is context to that promise of "unlimited". The government bought one cheap consumer-oriented cellular internet plan for their mission critical emergency communications. There is a bit of mismatch on the intended purpose of the offer. I'm sure you'll even find a disclaimer of liability and disclaimer of suitability/warranty in the contract. The government f'ed up, no way around it.

And I'd wager heavily that the government employees/contractors had ample budget to read the contract.

"cheap," "consumer-oriented"

Two terms that don't appear in any Verizon contract, commercial or otherwise.

Nope, this isn't a plan offered to consumers, both AT&T and Verizon actually offer the $37.99 unlimited data device plan to any government organization or charity in a state that participates in the Western State Contracting Alliance.

Part of what WSCA contracts for is better service, which was obviously not provided here. The Verizon Rep did jack when confronted with a critical issue, he could have easily done either of the plan changes suggested and applied a credit for the difference. But, on Verizon only their employees are allowed to work on WSCA contracted accounts, ensuring they perpetually get the worst customer support. No other carrier does this!

> There is context to that promise of "unlimited".

There's no context to any such promise that would make it not fraudulent, given how they implemented it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com