Vodaphone versus a deaf person (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION)

[kiptower]

its the Bear Garden

[zooch]

xxxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxx

[BenjaminBrown]

Dear Zooch,

I understand you have recently issued court papers against Vodafone UK for discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act. I understand that you feel Vodafone is acting in a discriminatory way towards deaf and hard of hearing people. Whilst the details of your grievance are not clear at this stage, I would like to reassure you that there are several solutions which may be suitable for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

There are features on most mobile phones which make them easier for people who are hard of hearing to use. Most phones have adjustable speaker volumes, vibrating alerts and the ability to send and receive text messages and emails.

Further, customers who are deaf can contact us via the Text Relay service. Our customer services colleagues are familiar with receiving operator-assisted calls.

For customers who are deaf or hard of hearing and do not require a high volume of voice minutes, we have a number of options available. In the first instance, we recommend using a pay-as-you-go price plan. If a customer chooses this option, they can spend £5 a month and text as much as they want on weekday evenings. For £10 a month they can text as much as they want in the evenings and at weekends, and for £30 a month a customer can text as much as they like any time of the day or night. A fair usage policy applies with all pay-as-you-go price plans.

Another good option is a 12 month SIM-only contract for £10 per month. This would have only a small amount of voice minutes included – 300 - and would have unlimited text messages. Again, a fair usage policy applies to all contract price plans. As email is often a useful feature for deaf or hard of hearing customers, Vodafone Mobile Internet can be added to this plan for an additional £5 per month.

If the customer wants a new handset and a contract we offer the following. A 24 month contract for £20 per month that includes a low volume of voice minutes – 300 - unlimited text messages and 500MB data allowance. This price plan is available on a wide range of handsets.

I hope this information is of some use to you. Please contact me directly if I can be of any further assistance.

Kind regards,

Ben Brown

Corporate Responsibility

Vodafone UK

[email protected]

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Hi Zooch,

 

Apologies for the slight delay with me getting to this thread but I'm pleased to see that Ben has popped on with some great advice.

 

In addition to his assistance here the Web Relations Team has a pinned thread at the top of the section here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed-internet/213340-vodafone-webteam-customers-problems.html which explains how customers can get in touch.

 

If you could update the thread at the point at which you've emailed us I'll make sure we can get back to you as soon as possible.

 

Many thanks,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[zooch]

xxxxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxxx

[Bookworm]

Let us know, will you?

[zooch]

xxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxxxx

[zooch]

xxxxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxx

[benny1970]

Well done Zooch. It about time action is taken against those who break the law. I just been reading your comments. It is amazing vodafone failed to read your posts properly. They were trying to divert from your real complaint!

[pompeyfaith]

I believe its not only the deaf or hard of hearing that would benefit from a text only service indeed many able bodied persons use text only my son for one.

 

Because 9 times out of 10 the person is not available to speak so now he just communicates via text as it is quicker.

 

PF

[stevo7790]

Sorry to seem like I'm butting in here, but this is the first time on CAG where I have become confused, not by the legal jargon but purely the circumstances surrounding the case.

 

The OP is taking Vodafone to court simply because they don't do a text only service on contract?

 

My ex was deaf and I have a fair few deaf friends, deaf from birth... they all have mobile phones and they never complain. I know its each to their own.

I'm guessing the basis of the court case is because through correspondence somebody has made you feel that your being discriminated against? Am I right in thinking this to be the case? I never judge anyone or anything on face value but I really don't know where your coming from with this.

 

Do other operators offer a text only service? as it seems a bit unfair to make Vodafone the culprit for a service they simply just don't offer.

 

Furthermore why not suggest it as an idea?, it would benefit both provider and consumer.

Fair enough make a complaint that is your right, however just because my lawn mower wont actually bin the grass cuttings for me, doesn't mean I'd take Fimo to court over it.

 

Or am I just not getting the point?

 

Sorry if I don't

 

Steve

[benny1970]

yeah...you dont get the point...read all of the posts....then the DDA law!

[stevo7790]

I did read all the posts, hmm... I think I'll keep away from this topic to.

 

I was only trying to understand the situation, but thank you Benny for your most unhelpful and seemingly abrupt post.

[locutus]

I did read all the posts, hmm... I think I'll keep away from this topic to.

 

I was only trying to understand the situation, but thank you Benny for your most unhelpful and seemingly abrupt post.

 

I've read all this thread aswell and I don't know what the OP wants as a solution. I'm sure Vodafone will bar the calling facility on his/her phone if requested. As calls and texts are all bundled "free" with the phone contract I don't see what is missing.

 

My thoughts remain that as the OP must've selected this contract (as you cannot sign up for a contract in someone else's name) it must have appeared to fulfill his/her needs.

 

Discrimination is unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. If the contract was lacking something needed by deaf people then I'd 100% side with the OP. I don't see as having something extra that will not be used as being discriminated against.

 

If someone wants to point out what "law" has been broken I'm more than willing to learn.

[Bookworm]

Ok, I'll try, but pls don't yell at me if I fail!!!

 

1 - "free" minutes are anything but. The contract you take and pay for has inclusive texts and talk, which vary contract to contract.

 

2 - On principle, when you take out a contract, you are intending to use as much of the inclusive stuff as you can so you don't have to pay more.

 

3 - In order to make the bundle attractive to customers, it usually comes with a nice phone, which bought separately or PAYG, would cost a lot more. Sometimes some of those phones are not even available unless you take out one of the contracts.

 

4 - A deaf person has no requirements for talk minutes, and a blind one for texts. However, all the variations on txt/talk ALWAYS included some of one and some of the other, so tailored for one's needs within limits.

 

5 - A deaf or blind person gets made to pay for both services, one of which is blatantly not needed. If that person however still needs to make the SAME amount of calls (which includes both forms of communication in my explanation) than a non-deaf or blind person would make, they would then have to exceed the allowance on one of the forms of calls, whilst not touching the other side of the allowance, thus incurring additional costs on one side, but still paying full contract price for the other unused side of the minutes.

 

With me so far? Ok. Next.

 

The DDA is very clear that any company can be in breach of their obligations as regards "reasonable adjustments" if by their actions or lack thereof, they cause a disabled person to be treated less favourably than an able one. Bear in mind that "reasonable adjustment" can actually be quite costly, the point being that no company should be able to not carry out reasonable adjustment on the grounds of "inconvenient", "that's not how we do it", "it would be too expensive", unless in the last one, they can show that the amount of costs would largely exceed the use of it, and even then they would be expected to have an alternative solution unless impossible. Think of historical buildings for example, you couldn't build a lift on the outside of Westminster Abbey so that people in wheelchairs could get to inside the towers. It would however be reasonable to expect them to supply removable ramps so that the wheelchair can at least access the ground floor, and this without changing the outer structure of an historical monument.

 

The DDA can apply to all sorts of situations, not just physical visible ones. For example, when the Terracotta Army was displayed for a special exhibition at the British Museum last year, the way they were doing it was you had to queue up every morning, they sold 500 tickets, so first come first served and that was that, for when the doors opened at 9.

 

Problem is I can't stand for very long and queuing is a big no-no for me, and my son has Asperger's Syndrome, so getting him to stand still for 2 hours because then we can go and see somethign he really wanted to see is not a concept he can get, and he would be in meltdown within 5 mns of queuing.

 

If you're a friend of the BM however, you can book online ahead, and not queue. But of course being a friend of the BM is expensive. However, the privilege of booking online would come under the "inclusive" concept, same as the minutes on contract phones are.

 

So, my argument to the BM was that a reasonable adjustment, and it really wasn't a costly one, just a tweak in the software, would be to allow disabled people to book online too, and collect their tickets directly at the "box-office" on presentation of proof of disability.

 

Long story short, they "made an exception" and booked our tickets so we could collect them, but by person to person and after months of e-mails, which was ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, they could and should implement my suggestion, and I hope they have (I haven't checked).

 

Another example (well, you lot did want an explanation, you got it, lol), but this time of doing it right, is the O2. They have a dedicated disabled phone line, a space on the floor with removable seats, at the front of the stage for visibility, which is reserved for disabled access, so that people in wheelchairs can both access and see without people standing in front of them. It is done quickly, courteously and they can answer most questions about various implementations without hesitations. I will be testing how it works out on the day next year, but just the booking procedure has left me extremely impressed so far. It made me feel "normal" instead of feeling I was imposing on their good will, which is how all able-bodied people feel when they book. You book, you pay, done. A disabled person feels they are causing all kind of problems just to access the same service as an able person does.

 

Anyway, back to Vodafone. It would cost them nothing to have a disabled only contract, adapted to deaf or blind people, I think we can all agree on that, yes? The person still pays the same price, gets the same phone as an able-bodied person does (so far, so good), but the inclusive (funny they should use the term in this instance ) minutes are spread so the disabled person gets full access (note the words) to the whole of their contract, without limitations or additional costs. If someone goes away not having been able to purchase the same phone as an able-bodied person, with a contract fulfilling their needs in the same way as it did for an able-bodied person, they're in breach, even if the contract didn't take place.

 

By not offering that contract, by refusing to alter the terms so that the contract is equally accessible to the disabled person, by not even already having in place such an alternative, Vodafone (and yes, all other phone companies) are in breach of the DDA.

 

The duty under the DDA of all companies is that disabled people shouldn't have to be made to try and adapt to them, they should be adapting themselves to the disabled where possible.

 

Hope that makes things a bit clearer. Incidentally, whether you agree or not, think it's taking things too far or not, that's irrelevant, that's how it's set under law.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Bookworm

[Surfer01]

I agree that some adjustments need to eb made for disabled people but they should be reasonable. At the moment I can get around on elbow crutches and at some palces like a county court to get inside you have to go up several sets of stairs as it si an historical building. I accept thsi but by the same toke a secondary entrance aqround the back could be made available..

Regarding Vodafone and other similar suppliers, should they have special phones and contracts for those that have no hands or arms? I know that O2 offer a text only service so why didn't the OP opt for that instead of making waves against Vodafonde.

Although disabled myself I don't like making a scene out of being disabled unless it is totally discriminatory and even then I don't want to use my disability to my personal advantage.

[locutus]

Ok, I'll try, but pls don't yell at me if I fail!!!

Like me yelling at you would phase you

 

1 - "free" minutes are anything but. The contract you take and pay for has inclusive texts and talk, which vary contract to contract.

Vodafone do lots of different contracts of all sorts of prices. You can get a package with unlimited internet and unlimited texts for £15 per month (OK you'd have to buy your own handset with that one). That comes with 300 minutes aswell but so what? If the packages were deficient of anything needed then I'd agree that they needed adjusting.

 

2 - On principle, when you take out a contract, you are intending to use as much of the inclusive stuff as you can so you don't have to pay more.

Playing Devils Advocate here, If Vodafone did a package for £14.99 with unlimited texts and unlimited internet but 0 minutes, saving 1p and said that it was a package for the deaf, would that make everything alright? They control the prices of their tariffs.

 

3 - In order to make the bundle attractive to customers, it usually comes with a nice phone, which bought separately or PAYG, would cost a lot more. Sometimes some of those phones are not even available unless you take out one of the contracts.

True that a lot of phones come as part of a package, however there are usually more than 1 package you can choose from (the blackberry and I-phone packages come at different price ranges, and they are normally balanced between calls and texts)other than those exceptions, they normally do one with high to unlimited texts and one with higher phone calls.

 

4 - A deaf person has no requirements for talk minutes, and a blind one for texts. However, all the variations on txt/talk ALWAYS included some of one and some of the other, so tailored for one's needs within limits.

Those same limits apply to everyone when picking a package. They try to make people get a package that has more than enough for their needs.

 

5 - A deaf or blind person gets made to pay for both services, one of which is blatantly not needed. If that person however still needs to make the SAME amount of calls (which includes both forms of communication in my explanation) than a non-deaf or blind person would make, they would then have to exceed the allowance on one of the forms of calls, whilst not touching the other side of the allowance, thus incurring additional costs on one side, but still paying full contract price for the other unused side of the minutes.

 

With me so far? Ok. Next.

with you but still not convinced

 

The DDA is very clear that any company can be in breach of their obligations as regards "reasonable adjustments" if by their actions or lack thereof, they cause a disabled person to be treated less favourably than an able one. Bear in mind that "reasonable adjustment" can actually be quite costly, the point being that no company should be able to not carry out reasonable adjustment on the grounds of "inconvenient", "that's not how we do it", "it would be too expensive", unless in the last one, they can show that the amount of costs would largely exceed the use of it, and even then they would be expected to have an alternative solution unless impossible. Think of historical buildings for example, you couldn't build a lift on the outside of Westminster Abbey so that people in wheelchairs could get to inside the towers. It would however be reasonable to expect them to supply removable ramps so that the wheelchair can at least access the ground floor, and this without changing the outer structure of an historical monument.

Your example is that something is harder / impossible for a physically disabled person to enjoy. The issue the OP has is different. They will have been able to pick a package with unlimited texts and howevermany meg internet. That would service all their "needs"

 

The DDA can apply to all sorts of situations, not just physical visible ones. For example, when the Terracotta Army was displayed for a special exhibition at the British Museum last year, the way they were doing it was you had to queue up every morning, they sold 500 tickets, so first come first served and that was that, for when the doors opened at 9.

 

Problem is I can't stand for very long and queuing is a big no-no for me, and my son has Asperger's Syndrome, so getting him to stand still for 2 hours because then we can go and see somethign he really wanted to see is not a concept he can get, and he would be in meltdown within 5 mns of queuing.

 

If you're a friend of the BM however, you can book online ahead, and not queue. But of course being a friend of the BM is expensive. However, the privilege of booking online would come under the "inclusive" concept, same as the minutes on contract phones are.

 

So, my argument to the BM was that a reasonable adjustment, and it really wasn't a costly one, just a tweak in the software, would be to allow disabled people to book online too, and collect their tickets directly at the "box-office" on presentation of proof of disability.

 

Long story short, they "made an exception" and booked our tickets so we could collect them, but by person to person and after months of e-mails, which was ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, they could and should implement my suggestion, and I hope they have (I haven't checked).

Thats a darn good idea. If they haven't implemented it I'll write a letter expressing my disgust with them. That would enable lots of people enjoy something that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. IMHO that is exactly what the DDA was aimed at doing.

 

Another example (well, you lot did want an explanation, you got it, lol), but this time of doing it right, is the O2. They have a dedicated disabled phone line, a space on the floor with removable seats, at the front of the stage for visibility, which is reserved for disabled access, so that people in wheelchairs can both access and see without people standing in front of them. It is done quickly, courteously and they can answer most questions about various implementations without hesitations. I will be testing how it works out on the day next year, but just the booking procedure has left me extremely impressed so far. It made me feel "normal" instead of feeling I was imposing on their good will, which is how all able-bodied people feel when they book. You book, you pay, done. A disabled person feels they are causing all kind of problems just to access the same service as an able person does.

I think the BM must've warned them that you were doing the rounds However it is good to see people that care and are willing to do things to make socializing and going for a day out easier.

 

Anyway, back to Vodafone. It would cost them nothing to have a disabled only contract, adapted to deaf or blind people, I think we can all agree on that, yes? The person still pays the same price, gets the same phone as an able-bodied person does (so far, so good), but the inclusive (funny they should use the term in this instance ) minutes are spread so the disabled person gets full access (note the words) to the whole of their contract, without limitations or additional costs. If someone goes away not having been able to purchase the same phone as an able-bodied person, with a contract fulfilling their needs in the same way as it did for an able-bodied person, they're in breach, even if the contract didn't take place.

 

By not offering that contract, by refusing to alter the terms so that the contract is equally accessible to the disabled person, by not even already having in place such an alternative, Vodafone (and yes, all other phone companies) are in breach of the DDA.

 

The duty under the DDA of all companies is that disabled people shouldn't have to be made to try and adapt to them, they should be adapting themselves to the disabled where possible.

 

Hope that makes things a bit clearer. Incidentally, whether you agree or not, think it's taking things too far or not, that's irrelevant, that's how it's set under law.

The examples you've quoted are all things that are deficient. The packages from Vodafone are available with surplus. The point about the handsets only being available on contract is because Vodafone want to lock the customer in for a term to claw back the money for the handset, then rely on customer loyalty to keep them afterwords.

Thank you for taking the time out to post that bookie. I think tho, on this occasion we'll have to agree to disagree (rare as that is!)

[Bookworm]

You're absolutely right, that the adjustments should be reasonable and that's exactly how it is set out in the DDA, "reasonable adjustments" is indeed the key word.

 

But to take your example of "why couldn't OP go to O2", well, there could be many reasons, maybe his whole family is on Voda too and so it would cost him more to switch. Maybe there isn't an o2 shop where he lives. Maybe he has his own reasons not to want to use them (I know that as soon as I am out of my contract with Orange, I will never touch them again with a bargepole!), who knows? Who cares? The point is that it isn't up to him to adapt to the phone company, it is up to the phone company to adapt to cater for the disabled, as you rightly say, WHERE REASONABLE. Supplying a call/txts only contract is not unreasonable. Expecting high street companies to provide specially built/equipped phones is. It's all, yet again, in the "reasonable" part. ;-)

 

As for your last paragraph, I can completely relate, because I have done the same for a long time. And then you turn it around and things change. Let me ask you: If you were able-bodied and were treated like a second-rate citizen or an inconvenience whenever you go shopping, travelling etc, would you put with that shoddy treatment? Most of us, I think it's fair to say, wouldn't. Yet disabled people are expected to do so, they are supposed to adapt, they are supposed to be grateful for the crumbs day in day out.

 

Well, I am done feeling that I have to beg just to get the modicum of dignity everyone able-bodied takes for granted. Because I was able-bodied for so long, I can see the difference now, and for a long time, I was making all the efforts not to make waves, not to disturb, jut put up and shut up. Not any more. Not just for me, but for other people whose voice doesn't carry as far.

 

I have just been offered a job as editor of the disability magazine that serves our borough, and I am planning to turn it into something that will be more than AGM notices, I can tell you. For me, for my child who will always be disabled too, and for everyone who can't be heard, that's the least I can do. Enough of the "oh well, I'll just get on with it then". Enough of the companies that barely give the DDA lip service. Enough of the shops who consider you a nuisance because that wheelchair can't get through their tightly packed carrousels of clothes. Enough of the councils so eager to penny pinch that someone on crutches can't even walk normally around the town centre.

 

"reasonable" adjustment means that. No one is asking companies to spend billions and knock down historical buildings so that disabled people can step in style. But it has to be done on a case by case as to what "reasonable" means. And companies should not get away with simply doing nothing because it's more convenient. Our disability might inconvenience them, well last I checked it inconvenienced us even more, and all the time, and we certainly didn't choose to be like that, so enough of treating us less well than others for something we haven't chosen to be.

 

Sorry, you really got me in rant mode today, it's just between the new govt ideas and this, it seems to me we're going backwards so fast it's scary.

[Bookworm]

Thank you for taking the time out to post that bookie. I think tho, on this occasion we'll have to agree to disagree (rare as that is!)

That's quite allright, m'dear, disagree all you like, it doesn't change anything, this wasn't an opinion per se, it was explaining how the DDA works.

 

You see, the "little" changes you mention are the salient points at which the disabled person is being put at a disadvantage:

the "(OK you'd have to buy your own handset with that one)" for example. Why should he when someone able-bodied wouldn't have to?

 

Playing Devils Advocate here, If Vodafone did a package for £14.99 with unlimited texts and unlimited internet but 0 minutes, saving 1p and said that it was a package for the deaf, would that make everything alright? They control the prices of their tariffs. ---> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that example.

 

Those same limits apply to everyone when picking a package. They try to make people get a package that has more than enough for their needs.

Precisely. Yet they don't do one that would cater for people with special needs, and that's where they fail in their duty of care under the DDA.

 

The examples you've quoted are all things that are deficient. Absolutely. Yet, they were not aware that they were even discriminating. In the abosolute, Vodafone offering a either/or service to cater for the deaf or blind would be such a minuscule adjustment that it makes you wonder why they don't do it yet. The answer is because they haven't even realised they could be treating disabled people differently in that respect, and it will take a case like this to make them aware.

 

It seems to me that the simplest solution all round would be for them to put their hands up, apologise, give the chap his suitably modified contract (and pay his court fees of course), make sure that they have in the future such contracts available when asked (they don't even have to advertise them, only to have them avaialble if asked!, although as I said before it would be a major marketing coup to get in there before other phone companies do), and voila.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that if they don't, it will end up costing them the hell of a lot more, the disability Commission is itching to make a few chosen examples to make companies wake up to their obligations (as per the case mentioned higher up). Personally, if I were the person in charge of this at Vodaphone, I would throw in freebies as well as an apology just to make sure. ;-)

[locutus]

That's quite allright, m'dear, disagree all you like, it doesn't change anything, this wasn't an opinion per se, it was explaining how the DDA works.

 

You see, the "little" changes you mention are the salient points at which the disabled person is being put at a disadvantage:

the "(OK you'd have to buy your own handset with that one)" for example. Why should he when someone able-bodied wouldn't have to?

It's a SIM only contract. (the one Ben from Vodafone quoted earlier) Everyone needs to pay for a handset with that example. (sorry, I didn't make myself clear on that)

Playing Devils Advocate here, If Vodafone did a package for £14.99 with unlimited texts and unlimited internet but 0 minutes, saving 1p and said that it was a package for the deaf, would that make everything alright? They control the prices of their tariffs

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that example.

That's the same package (unlimited texts and 500 meg internet) with 1p knocked off an no phone calls included. If Vodafone introduced that as a contract aimed at being more applicable to deaf and hard of hearing people would that small adjustment make everyone happy? If so this is a lot of discussion over the 1p saving, and at the end of the day Vodafone control the prices.

 

Those same limits apply to everyone when picking a package. They try to make people get a package that has more than enough for their needs.

Precisely. Yet they don't do one that would cater for people with special needs, and that's where they fail in their duty of care under the DDA.

Always remember "You are unique.... Just like everybody else". Everyone has slightly different usage needs. Vodafone rely on people getting a contract and them not using it to the maximum. My partner gets unlimited internet (that has a limit of 1 gig:razz:) unlimited texts (that has a limit of 3000:razz:) and 300 minutes. She only texts and goes on facebook, so a package designed for the deaf would suit her. We knew this when she signed with them, however the package is £15 per month with 30 days rolling contract, we figured it was worth it. (Thats with 3 by the way if anyone is wondering.) and everyone should assess a contract suits their needs before signing to it.

 

The examples you've quoted are all things that are deficient.

Absolutely. Yet, they were not aware that they were even discriminating. In the abosolute, Vodafone offering a either/or service to cater for the deaf or blind would be such a minuscule adjustment that it makes you wonder why they don't do it yet. The answer is because they haven't even realised they could be treating disabled people differently in that respect, and it will take a case like this to make them aware.

All the packages with unlimited texts / internet would cater for the deaf, just as contracts with the correct amount of minutes will probably cater to the blind. It all depends on that individual's usage. Plus you can get some devices that you can dictate to and can read your messages out, so texts would not be totally useless to the blind. IMO this is an issue of price rather than an issue of the features, but I'll leave the OP to clarify if they so desire.

 

It seems to me that the simplest solution all round would be for them to put their hands up, apologise, give the chap his suitably modified contract (and pay his court fees of course), make sure that they have in the future such contracts available when asked (they don't even have to advertise them, only to have them avaialble if asked!, although as I said before it would be a major marketing coup to get in there before other phone companies do), and voila.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that if they don't, it will end up costing them the hell of a lot more, the disability Commission is itching to make a few chosen examples to make companies wake up to their obligations (as per the case mentioned higher up). Personally, if I were the person in charge of this at Vodaphone, I would throw in freebies as well as an apology just to make sure. ;-)

Modify his contract how? This doesn't come down to they're not providing services, they are providing some services he cannot use and he wants a price adjustment accordingly I believe (not sure as the original poster has not clarified this point.) HOWEVER (this is only in my opinion) I'd expect deaf people will make more use of texts and thus balancing Vodafone's costs on an unlimited text package. Where a hearing person would need to talk to someone a deaf person will use a text or a bunch of texts. As I said above, you can get an unlimited text package on any of the price plans (except the Blackberry and I-Phone) so I don't see any discrimination. On the Blackberry and I-Phone packages they are heavily subsidizing the cost of the handset as they are expensive. I believe that you can also opt for an unlimited text package on these aswell tho, but they're slightly more than the regular contracts, as Blackberry contracts and I-Phone contracts are more expensive for everybody. (they do have specific internet needs to use these devices to their fullest aswell, which must factor into the cost of the package)

[Bookworm]

Ok, I think we may be at cross purpose there (we'll get there, lol).

 

My understanding of the situation was that OP wanted a package with a certain phone, which comes with x amount of SMS, x amount of talk, so not unlimited, and presumably, for whatever reason, with this particular network.

 

My understanding (again happy to be corrected) is that because OP couldn't use the talk minutes, but presumably make full usage of his SMS, he's happy to pay the same price as everyone, but with only SMS allowance and no talk. In other words, the total "inclusive" package is geared exclusively towards SMS, with nothing for talk (no idea about internet, I don't think that has been mentioned?), OP is paying the same as everyone else but with his specific need catered for, he is not at risk of running out of SMS faster because that's his only way of communication, which would cost him more than the person who has both allowances and spreads comms either way, it's hardly causing Voda a great deal of inconvenience to tailor this package, and considering how often they repackage their bundles especially, and the issue goes away. Simples.

 

I realise we are both making a lot of assumptions here, that was how I read the original post, but I could be completely off, of course. Wouldn't be the first time.

[locutus]

I realise we are both making a lot of assumptions here, that was how I read the original post, but I could be completely off, of course. Wouldn't be the first time.

Gonna echo that. You know what they say about the word "ass-u-me" and that just may prove to be the case here

 

The info I'd like:-

 

What handset was the OP wanting (as I said earlier the Blackberry and I-Phone has specific data needs and the handset its self is expensive, this increases the price of the packages for these, so I'm sensing one of these!)

 

And what price of tariff is the OP wanting for this?

 

 

[ramble mode]

OK, if I lost my hearing and wanted a communication device what would I go for? Probably a netbook with a SIM slot to be honest, and a cheep PAYG phone for when I'm out and about. I don't know Vodafone's dongle/data packages that well, but usually I'd want about 3 gig and 200 texts, however considering my hypothetical deafness I'd increase the texts to unlimited. Now as I used to work for T-Mobile I know they do a package as such for £25 per month (that package has more data than I need but I'm worth it ). All I'd do is use the SIM in the lappy around the house for texting and emailing, then slip the SIM into a handset when I go out.

 

Anyway, back to the OP's Vodafone trouble within my ramble, the "free minutes and texts" commonly are actually that as there is little other profit from these contracts as I can show with this example. For a 32 gig I-Phone 4g, the cheapest packages (£25 per month on a 24 month contract, £30 per month on an 18 month contract) you get 75 minutes and 250 texts. Now I can see how wanting extra texts would appeal to a deaf customer, so lets look at doing it a different way. The cheapest price to buy a new unlocked 32 gig I-Phone 4g is £600.00. The entire term of the 24 month contract is £600! The 18 month contract is £540. Vodafone make no more profit than just selling the handsets on PAYG, even though you get up to 2 years of that package, so in that case the calls and texts really are just about free. All the higher priced packages come with unlimited texts, if thats what someone needs then go ahead.

 

OK another example. The choice of President Obama, The Blackberry. This is a device that I think would appeal to deaf people more than any other group (except maybe nerds... I'd including myself in that group, however I tend to go for something different to everyone else.. I not a herd nerd the same goes for the U-Sheep... I mean I-Phone)

 

So, the Bold 9700. All the plans where you get this phone free have unlimited texts. so, thats £35 per month over 18 months, and £30 per month over 24 months. Total cost over 18 months £630 and over 24 months £720 you can pick that up for £380 unlocked and sim free, but with the Blackberry the main feature is the "Push" Emails. This device actually checks your email address and retrieves them very soon after they have been sent (makes emails similar to text messages) and this is what takes up the bulk of the contract cost. If you look at o2, they price things with separate boosters (they call them bolt on's) and the blackberry bolt on is £10 per month (which without it just becomes a standard phone) so PAYG Blackberry Bold 9700 for 18 months = £560 (Vodafone package over the same period of time including unlimited texts =630, only £70 more or £3.88 per month) and over 24 months £620 (Vodafone package again with unlimited texts over the same period £720 is only £100 more. Thats £100 for 2 years unlimited texts, or £4.17 per month!

 

I also believe that when buying a phone it is the buyers responsibility for selecting handset, tariff and who to go with for coverage issues and all this needs to be tested and 100% covered with a fine tooth comb before the buyer considers taking these things up. (I also always recommend buying online as you don't get any misleading sales person who has his own agenda, and you get the distance selling regulations protection incase you have made a mis calculation with any of your "100% fine tooth combing"

[/ramble mode]

[zooch]

xxxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxx

[locutus]

What is the contract bundle and cost, and which phone?

[benny1970]

Locutus I don't think you are getting the point here. All of the monthly contracts discriminate the person raising the court action! You are going over old grounds! Vodafone have broken the law and they need to be made answerable to the case.