Dual Number GeoSIM Now Available

[FBlack_111]

Matha:

Well said.

Oh, and the next time I visit Bulgaria I'll worry about paying a little extra to make a call. But paying an annual fee to GeoSIM is smart. Right?

[JohnCK]

My point is that for someone who uses their SIM regularly it is more viable to pay a small annual fee than pay a $0.35 set up fee for the majority of calls, both inbound and outbound. Over 365 days that $0.35 set up fee could grow into significantly more. I would suggest that any customer better off paying the set up fee and not a small annual fee would not be valued in any way by any Distributor, as the ratio of free inbound to chargeable calls would be ridiculously high.

[adam917]

Originally Posted by bbob

A USD 35c connection fee applies to each call made (from all Zones) or received (outside Zone 1).

So there is no setup cost when receiving a call in zone1. zone 1 covers the raoming free countries including the usa.

Sure you have to look at the whole pricutre, the amount of call you make, receive and this will tell what is the best for you in the end.

Untill now fair use was not an issue but all of a sudden it was there. It's now hidden in terms and yes fair use is a problem. As you don't know what limits or rules are for fair use they can disconnect you whenever they want.
I don't care if big companies of whoever have it in their terms, it sucks. Just be honest and open and specify the limit, ratio. Tell your customers if you warn them and give them x days before they are shutdown.

So yes you can bang on fairuse because it's simply a tool to shut you down, take your money, (no refund under fair use) and they are the judge and you don't know the rules.

If you wan't to deal with those companies it's up to you. I prefer not to.

If it were up to me, I'd set the ratio to whatever it should be, clearly specify it, then have it enforced automatically after certain conditions are met (like warnings for instance). This can be a far fairer way to solve the problem because if the fair-use rules are enforced at the distributor/carrier's discretion, some others may get more leniency than others.

[bbob]

adam Í can only totally agree with you. If they need some rules specify them so everyone can check themselfs if they are within the rules.

[MrEd]

Many companies implement fair usage policies including Mobile phone, SIMs, Broadband providers etc. It is in place to protect the majority of customers and the company in question. It is not put in place to penalise fair users. Major companies such as O2, Tiscali and lots of others all have fair usage policy on many of their products or services. Few of which specify the criteria.

It would be easy to implement a fixed ratio/policy However, it does not work because a customers usage may vary over time with the type and number of calls made or received. One month they may only receive calls, the next 3 months they may make and receive calls, then the next month make lots of calls.

A reputable dealer will undoubtedly use discretion and warn/request that the cusomter they may be infringing the fair usage policy a number of times before disconnecting (in sever cases) or start to charge for incoming calls on the customers account. Where significant and blatant abuse is obvious, a dealer may decide to immediately suspend an account.

Significant abuse may also indicate other fraudulent or illegal activites.


Additionally, if a fixed fair usage criteria were in place and published, then it would have to be at such a level it would penalise genuine fair users. This impedes business and increases costs for end users. Remember that freeloaders/abusers cost, and these costs have to be bourne buy someone, which would be other fair users.

One analogy could be that, a company does not publish what checks it makes to prevent credit card fraud because this allows fraudsters the opportunity to work around them. Similarly, if a fixed fair usage policy were published, the abusers would take it to the limit. As above, that limit would have to be "high" so as not to cost the company in question too much, and so it does not inhibit fair using customers.

As you can see it is a dynamic balance that has to have some flexibility and consider many factors.

Abusers come in many forms, some are individuals, some companies including other SIM providers. Sometimes the abuse is a few hours or some times hundreds of hours per month. A fixed policy would not work for all, thus necessitating each case to be judged on its own "merits".

The saying goes, "you can't please all of the people all of the time", but most companies will do their best. There will always be a some that feel aggrieved or hard done by. Often these are the abusers themselves, who from experience know full well what they are doing and often move from company to company "abusing" as they go until the the latest "unfortunate" company finds out what hey are up to.

Ultimately, a fair usage policy is there to protect the company and therefore it's existing and "fair using" customers. Fair using customer typical agree with this approach as they want a reliable and stable service provider who is not exposed to the risk of increased costs, or companies not being able to provide the relevant service they have paid for.

[FBlack_111]

I think most of us understand the general reason a company implements a Fair Usage policy.

But in their Terms, they usually have a statement that essentially says that in addition to Terminating the user account, they can also charge extra for the so called Fair Use violations. I don't like surprise charges.

GeoSIM Fair Use section says: "Geodesa reserves the right to monitor usage, to apply call charges and/or withdraw the service from any SIMcard ... "

They just have over broad requirements. They have no policy to warn a user of a potential violations. IE: a Notification and Cure provision. The ratios are a mystery. Is 49% vs. 51% a violation. Over what time period? I have been burned in the past by hidden requirements. What if they decide to charge a $2.00 a minute penalty on calls they consider violating Fair Usage rules?

[bbob]

What I really hate it the argument other companies are also using it. So is that a reason for you to do that same as other companies ?
If I jump from a cliff will you also do that, come on grow up and use real argument and not these.

You explained your view on fair use, saying if a limit is in place people will try and find the limit. This can be true but using fair use does not give anyone a clue, we just have to trust it's used the right way.

But to trust you we can only rely on your terms. Nowwhere in your terms do I read that for example you will fist give a warning to a customer, you can say you will but if it's not written in your terms it's just not valid and you can always refer to your terms saying it's not written there. The same really applies to everything you say that you will be tolerant or whatever. Your terms are the ones that legally bind you. In these terms it really says you are the judge and decide without telling on what ground. This almost looks like middelage justice to me.

And as fbiack even metioned you reserve the right to even charge more. This is really even taking it a step further. Also any credit is not refunded so you are also taking this away from a customer.

Aslo if you claim to be clear about your costs, write the fair use policy on your website not hidden in term. You state you have a yearly charge for the card so you are open about that but for some reason (marketing) you fail to do this for fair use, just hide it in the terms.

My only conclusion at this point is that based on your terms, I would advice no one to buy the card. The same applies to other companies having simular terms and hidding them.

So be honest, write fair use on your website and wite clear terms that are indeed fair to everyone by giving warnings and stating this in the terms. I am looking forward seeing those changes but my feeling tells me that you will not change anything because it not good for marketing. This would just make you one of the companies that just follows the rest and nothing special to consider.

[MATHA531]

See here's my problem with fair usage....

I would suspect your ads all played up the idea of roaming free in x number of countries...there was no asterisk next to it or anything like that. So people would assume there is no limit on the amount of roaming one can do within the given validity of the card.....in addition since one pays more to call a mobile under the concept used outside North America and a few other places i.e. caller pays a substantial amount more, don't you guys get a piece of that action?

Again I'm not questioning your right to do it but I also have a problem with stealing people's credit....people should always have the right if they are disconnected to get back whatever portion of their credit was left when they were severed from the network.....

JMHO

[Stu]

I have a real problem with the notion that what I agree to in a contract is absolutely binding ("iron clad" against me), but the other side has the right to change the terms in their sole discretion. In U.S. domestic contracts, some courts have started to balk about this. Binding arbitration clauses buried in standard terms and conditions have been tossed in Washington State and California, sole discretion clauses have been invalidated, and the ability for one side to modify the contract at will has started to fall.

I understand the objection to callback services and believe there is some legitimacy to these, but someone who tells his family to call him/her every night or texts his friends and tells them to call him is a different story. Many people get these SIMs because they are free calls to their friends in the UK (if they are on the right plan). When I used to live in Dubai, I packed a dual SIM phone for precisely that reason.

[hkr]

Although I understand the reason behind any FUP, I hate when the provider does not state exactly what the actual limits are...