Telstra - Bastards!

[Ext User(elborak73@gmail.com)]

I recently got a phone call from a Telstra salesperson, asking if I
was interested in signing up for a Next-G phone - new phone, 2 year
contract - and I thought I may as well.

Got my 'new' phone yesterday, only to discover (after I got the phone
working, which was a hassle itself) someone else had used the phone
about 2 months ago, and the call register still had a record of these
calls.

Bastards!

Has anyone else had this happen to them, or heard of it happening to
someone else?

[Ext User(BB)]

There seems to be a lot of this happening lately, I'd be taking it back for
a new one, or better still get a discount as the phone will be outdated soon
and not worth much anyway.
BB


<elborak73@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171678787.709135.3040@l53g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
>I recently got a phone call from a Telstra salesperson, asking if I
> was interested in signing up for a Next-G phone - new phone, 2 year
> contract - and I thought I may as well.
>
> Got my 'new' phone yesterday, only to discover (after I got the phone
> working, which was a hassle itself) someone else had used the phone
> about 2 months ago, and the call register still had a record of these
> calls.
>
> Bastards!
>
> Has anyone else had this happen to them, or heard of it happening to
> someone else?
>

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On 16 Feb 2007 18:19:47 -0800, elborak73@gmail.com wrote:

> I recently got a phone call from a Telstra salesperson, asking if I
> was interested in signing up for a Next-G phone - new phone, 2 year
> contract - and I thought I may as well.
>
> Got my 'new' phone yesterday, only to discover (after I got the phone
> working, which was a hassle itself) someone else had used the phone
> about 2 months ago, and the call register still had a record of these
> calls.

There was a news story about this some months ago, where a Telstra Shop
customer (fool!) who bought a "new" phone found camera images on it. A
Telstra source quoted in the story said it was common practice for shop
staff to take new phones home to use them and "get used to their features"
then repackage them for sale.

Cheap-ass and deceptive behaviour by Telstra - but then, would you expect
anything less?

[Ext User(The man whose head diminished)]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:24:57 +1100, Anthony Horan
<anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There was a news story about this some months ago, where a Telstra Shop
>customer (fool!) who bought a "new" phone found camera images on it.

It was probably just Paris Hilton losing another handset. Google for
the images....

On that note, a passenger in my car found a handset between the seat
and the door today. I had no idea whose it was, so i decided to turn
it on to look for a "home" number in the address book. The battery was
dead. It needed a specialised charger. Swapped the SIM to my phone, to
find a "home number", no dice, SIM not compatible. I ended up calling
3 mobile and giving them the IMEI number. But for privacy reasons,
they wouldn't give me a name of the owner, so I waited while they
contacted them on their backup number, and was patched through to the
owner that way. Great privacy clause though, they gave the owner my
FULL NAME that I had provided earlier.

Anyway, it turns out I knew who the owner was. They had given up on it
(after about 6 weeks) and were about to buy a new one. For a while
there I was wondering how some strangers' phone had ended up in my
car.... I wonder what images may have been stored on it.....

AN.

[Ext User(mattic)]

In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is there?
Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?

Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were selling
and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?

The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
this.


<elborak73@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171678787.709135.3040@l53g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
>I recently got a phone call from a Telstra salesperson, asking if I
> was interested in signing up for a Next-G phone - new phone, 2 year
> contract - and I thought I may as well.
>
> Got my 'new' phone yesterday, only to discover (after I got the phone
> working, which was a hassle itself) someone else had used the phone
> about 2 months ago, and the call register still had a record of these
> calls.
>
> Bastards!
>
> Has anyone else had this happen to them, or heard of it happening to
> someone else?
>

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?

It's not new.

> What damage is there?

So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs? So you mean I should be
selling all my crap on eBay as "new" and not as "used, but in excellent
condition"? I think most state's Fair Trading would have a rather
different opinion to you there.

> Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?

Warranty has nothing to do with it. He didn't get given the brand
spanking new phone that he paid for, he got given a used phone at a new
phone price . No-one's arguing that the warranty still applies.

> Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were
> selling and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?

They should be using their own demo models, not using stock, putting
them back on the shelf and then selling them as "new".

> The phone should have been wiped,

No, it should've been left in its box.

> sure, but I've no problem with staff learning on it

I do. They should buy their own test and demo handsets, not use the one
I'm paying money for to be "new".

> and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by this.

Because it's no longer "new". It's "used".

Any other store that I've seen do something like this has, at minimum,
notified me that it's been out of the box but is a-ok or, at best, offer
it at a discounted price. I've bought a couple of items now that have
been out of the box but, being the only one left in stock, have been
sold to me at up to 20% off.

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(notyournormalRoddles)]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote just the
usual crap that we have come to expect from a plain-clothes Tel$tra apologist
slash BogPong user.

Pathetic really.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1171777699.858018@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?
>
> It's not new.

So, you're saying that the instant it is used, it is inferior because it is
not new. Seems an awful lot of fuss over the 1sec of "newness" you'd've been
robed of before you own use would have rendered it inferior.

>
>> What damage is there?
>
> So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs?

That's a bit of a quantum leap to take. Let's try to keep a lid our
emotions, there's a good chap.

> So you mean I should be
> selling all my crap on eBay as "new" and not as "used, but in excellent
> condition"? I think most state's Fair Trading would have a rather
> different opinion to you there.

If all you've done is test the features, I'd say you're safe calling it new.

>
>> Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>
> Warranty has nothing to do with it.

I'd say it's an important factor. "Not new" implies that the life of the
unit has been curtailed. A warranty covering the handset fo the usual period
from date of purchase renders this largely irrelevant.

> He didn't get given the brand
> spanking new phone that he paid for, he got given a used phone at a new
> phone price.

This sounds like emotional caterwauling to me. Especially for, BY YOUR OWN
MEASURES, the brief second of brand spankingness that a new phone offers.

>
>> Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were
>> selling and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>
> They should be using their own demo models, not using stock, putting
> them back on the shelf and then selling them as "new".

So, you're happy to prices go up, then? Because that's what would happen.
Every shop would have to buy every phone, possibly more than one if the
staff are to be brought up to speed quickly in order to serve you better.

>
>> The phone should have been wiped,
>
> No, it should've been left in its box.

What a neat little world you must live in.

>
>> sure, but I've no problem with staff learning on it
>
> I do. They should buy their own test and demo handsets, not use the one
> I'm paying money for to be "new".

A world of riches.

>
>> and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by this.
>
> Because it's no longer "new". It's "used".

Which means, precisely?
>
> Any other store that I've seen do something like this has, at minimum,
> notified me that it's been out of the box but is a-ok or, at best, offer
> it at a discounted price. I've bought a couple of items now that have
> been out of the box but, being the only one left in stock, have been
> sold to me at up to 20% off.

Ahhhh, so you want stuff cheap! You're the type who rips a bit of cardboard
packaging and demands a discount.
I mean, really, what are the specific, practical differences? That's right,
there are none. It's all emotional bollocks so you can get a discount.

[Ext User(mattic)]

That's all you've got?
pwned, then.

"notyournormalRoddles" <roddles@griffith.net.au> wrote in message
news:n8vft25a5h7jdclg5ln12f6adng5mjj9h4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote just
> the
> usual crap that we have come to expect from a plain-clothes Tel$tra
> apologist
> slash BogPong user.
>
> Pathetic really.

[Ext User(rebel)]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:

>In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is there?
>Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>
>Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were selling
>and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>
>The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
>learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
>this.

And I suppose that if you were in the market for a new car, you wouldn't mind a
demo model at full price, or one that all the sales staff have flogged around
for a week so that they know all about the product and can better serve you?

Yeah, right ...

[Ext User(mattic)]

"rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5nagt2trdggdo29dbc9bgk7v5do54kb5md@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
>
>>In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is there?
>>Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>>
>>Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were selling
>>and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>>
>>The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
>>learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
>>this.
>
> And I suppose that if you were in the market for a new car, you wouldn't
> mind a
> demo model at full price, or one that all the sales staff have flogged
> around
> for a week so that they know all about the product and can better serve
> you?

Your analogy is flawed.

The scenario you mention involves actual, demonstrable wear-and-tear on the
vehicle. There are also tables that indicate an immediate, substantial drop
in resale price as soon as the car has anymore than 10kms on the clock.

I hope you are not suggesting that a car has parity with a mobile phone
either in initial price or potential for being bought in order to re-sell at
some point.

Keep trying, lads, you might hit upon a decent argument at some point!

[Ext User(Graeme Willox)]

mattic wrote:
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1171777699.858018@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
>>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?
>> It's not new.
>
> So, you're saying that the instant it is used, it is inferior because it is
> not new. Seems an awful lot of fuss over the 1sec of "newness" you'd've been
> robed of before you own use would have rendered it inferior.
>
>>> What damage is there?
>> So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs?
>
> That's a bit of a quantum leap to take. Let's try to keep a lid our
> emotions, there's a good chap.

"There's a good chap?" And people wonder why usenet newsgroups often
degenerate into a mud slinging fest...

I think there is a reasonable expectation if you describe something as
"new", it is completely new and unused.

If you bought a brand new car, would you think it ok if the car salesman
took it away on holidays for a couple of days just so they can say they
know what the controls do?

[Ext User(Graeme Willox)]

mattic wrote:
> "rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:5nagt2trdggdo29dbc9bgk7v5do54kb5md@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is there?
>>> Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>>>
>>> Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were selling
>>> and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>>>
>>> The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
>>> learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
>>> this.
>> And I suppose that if you were in the market for a new car, you wouldn't
>> mind a
>> demo model at full price, or one that all the sales staff have flogged
>> around
>> for a week so that they know all about the product and can better serve
>> you?
>
> Your analogy is flawed.
>
> The scenario you mention involves actual, demonstrable wear-and-tear on the
> vehicle. There are also tables that indicate an immediate, substantial drop
> in resale price as soon as the car has anymore than 10kms on the clock.

If that's the case then phones must last forever. Clearly they don't.
Each press, flip, slide or whatever the phone does, brings it one step
closer to the end of its life. It may be very difficult to measure the
amount of wear, but it's wear all the same.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Graeme Willox" <graemewillox@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:er995u$4di$2@news-02.connect.com.au...
> mattic wrote:
>> "rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:5nagt2trdggdo29dbc9bgk7v5do54kb5md@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is
>>>> there?
>>>> Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>>>>
>>>> Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were
>>>> selling
>>>> and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>>>>
>>>> The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
>>>> learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
>>>> this.
>>> And I suppose that if you were in the market for a new car, you wouldn't
>>> mind a
>>> demo model at full price, or one that all the sales staff have flogged
>>> around
>>> for a week so that they know all about the product and can better serve
>>> you?
>>
>> Your analogy is flawed.
>>
>> The scenario you mention involves actual, demonstrable wear-and-tear on
>> the vehicle. There are also tables that indicate an immediate,
>> substantial drop in resale price as soon as the car has anymore than
>> 10kms on the clock.
>
> If that's the case then phones must last forever. Clearly they don't.
> Each press, flip, slide or whatever the phone does, brings it one step
> closer to the end of its life. It may be very difficult to measure the
> amount of wear, but it's wear all the same.

You speak the truth, but I'm not sure it contributes much.
My contention is the discernable wear and tear from the point of view of the
phone.

This concept of "brand spanking new" is a little irrational, if one is
prepared to look at it logically. A genuine emotion, no doubt, but hardly
important when one looks at the definitions touted here as to when a phone
becomes "not new". But VERY important if one is looking to throw a fit of
self-righteous outrage in order to save a few bucks. Frankly, I think we
could do without that sort of person in our lives.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Graeme Willox" <graemewillox@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:er98vc$4di$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
> mattic wrote:
>> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>> news:1171777699.858018@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
>>>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?
>>> It's not new.
>>
>> So, you're saying that the instant it is used, it is inferior because it
>> is not new. Seems an awful lot of fuss over the 1sec of "newness"
>> you'd've been robed of before you own use would have rendered it
>> inferior.
>>
>>>> What damage is there?
>>> So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs?
>>
>> That's a bit of a quantum leap to take. Let's try to keep a lid our
>> emotions, there's a good chap.
>
> "There's a good chap?" And people wonder why usenet newsgroups often
> degenerate into a mud slinging fest...

What's the acceptable equivilent in "Graeme Speak"? "Take a chill pill,
dude!"?

>
> I think there is a reasonable expectation if you describe something as
> "new", it is completely new and unused.
>
> If you bought a brand new car, would you think it ok if the car salesman
> took it away on holidays for a couple of days just so they can say they
> know what the controls do?

No, I would not. I have, however, already addressed this; it is a flawed
analogy.
Try to keep up, there's a good chap. ;-)

[Ext User(Spokes)]

On Feb 18, 9:15 pm, Graeme Willox <graemewil...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> mattic wrote:
> > "Paul Day" <p...@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> >news:1171777699.858018@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> >> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
> >>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?
> >> It's not new.
>
> > So, you're saying that the instant it is used, it is inferior because it is
> > not new. Seems an awful lot of fuss over the 1sec of "newness" you'd've been
> > robed of before you own use would have rendered it inferior.
>
> >>> What damage is there?
> >> So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs?
>
> > That's a bit of a quantum leap to take. Let's try to keep a lid our
> > emotions, there's a good chap.
>
> "There's a good chap?" And people wonder why usenet newsgroups often
> degenerate into a mud slinging fest...
>
> I think there is a reasonable expectation if you describe something as
> "new", it is completely new and unused.
>
> If you bought a brand new car, would you think it ok if the car salesman
> took it away on holidays for a couple of days just so they can say they
> know what the controls do?->

Mattic is trying to make us believe that the handset in question was
used for a "second" so that staff learn to understand its features.
According to the OP, there is a register of calls made from the
handset. This is hardly training but more likely use by a previous
customer who possibly returned the phone.
At the end of the day, Elbora was sold a used handset.
The warranty wouldn't be affected as it applies when the contract is
provisioned.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Spokes" <spokesman123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171800353.730563.296660@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 18, 9:15 pm, Graeme Willox <graemewil...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> mattic wrote:
>> > "Paul Day" <p...@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>> >news:1171777699.858018@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> >> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT mattic may have written:
>> >>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior?
>> >> It's not new.
>>
>> > So, you're saying that the instant it is used, it is inferior because
>> > it is
>> > not new. Seems an awful lot of fuss over the 1sec of "newness" you'd've
>> > been
>> > robed of before you own use would have rendered it inferior.
>>
>> >>> What damage is there?
>> >> So a phone is still "new" until damage occurs?
>>
>> > That's a bit of a quantum leap to take. Let's try to keep a lid our
>> > emotions, there's a good chap.
>>
>> "There's a good chap?" And people wonder why usenet newsgroups often
>> degenerate into a mud slinging fest...
>>
>> I think there is a reasonable expectation if you describe something as
>> "new", it is completely new and unused.
>>
>> If you bought a brand new car, would you think it ok if the car salesman
>> took it away on holidays for a couple of days just so they can say they
>> know what the controls do?->
>
> Mattic is trying to make us believe that the handset in question was
> used for a "second" so that staff learn to understand its features.

Really? Where did I say that?

> According to the OP, there is a register of calls made from the
> handset. This is hardly training

Video calls? Messagebank calls. Calls off an SMS (different phones have
different ways of doing this). There are a number of perfectly legitimate
calls to be made in the process of learning a new phone.

> but more likely use by a previous
> customer

Possibly, but hardly more likely. Yours is one explanation, mine is another.
Who can say for sure?

> who possibly returned the phone.

Gosh! Now we're in conspiracy land!

> At the end of the day, Elbora was sold a used handset.

Not in the way that YOU are implying the word.

> The warranty wouldn't be affected as it applies when the contract is
> provisioned.

Precisely, so what are you worrying about?
Oh, that's right! That second of newness that you missed out on! (By the
way, is that last sentence ringing any bells? It may help you to answer my
first question in this reply.)

[Ext User(tim_welsh_eliot@gmail.com)]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:59:51 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:

>
>"Graeme Willox" <graemewillox@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>news:er995u$4di$2@news-02.connect.com.au...
>> mattic wrote:
>>> "rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5nagt2trdggdo29dbc9bgk7v5do54kb5md@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:27:10 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In what way do you think your phone is now inferior? What damage is
>>>>> there?
>>>>> Isn't the warranty still valid from the day you bought it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you rather the staff knew nothing about the phones they were
>>>>> selling
>>>>> and sold you something that wouldn't suit your requirements?
>>>>>
>>>>> The phone should have been wiped, sure, but I've no problem with staff
>>>>> learning on it and I fail to see how your phone is rendered inferior by
>>>>> this.
>>>> And I suppose that if you were in the market for a new car, you wouldn't
>>>> mind a
>>>> demo model at full price, or one that all the sales staff have flogged
>>>> around
>>>> for a week so that they know all about the product and can better serve
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Your analogy is flawed.
>>>
>>> The scenario you mention involves actual, demonstrable wear-and-tear on
>>> the vehicle. There are also tables that indicate an immediate,
>>> substantial drop in resale price as soon as the car has anymore than
>>> 10kms on the clock.
>>
>> If that's the case then phones must last forever. Clearly they don't.
>> Each press, flip, slide or whatever the phone does, brings it one step
>> closer to the end of its life. It may be very difficult to measure the
>> amount of wear, but it's wear all the same.
>
>You speak the truth, but I'm not sure it contributes much.
>My contention is the discernable wear and tear from the point of view of the
>phone.
>
>This concept of "brand spanking new" is a little irrational, if one is
>prepared to look at it logically. A genuine emotion, no doubt, but hardly
>important when one looks at the definitions touted here as to when a phone
>becomes "not new". But VERY important if one is looking to throw a fit of
>self-righteous outrage in order to save a few bucks. Frankly, I think we
>could do without that sort of person in our lives.
>


Michael - is this the nick you're posting under now?!??

[Ext User(mattic)]

<tim_welsh_eliot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gtgt2dc4i6ung5p496s3k5jmci3kibd17@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:59:51 GMT, "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote:
>
>>This concept of "brand spanking new" is a little irrational, if one is
>>prepared to look at it logically. A genuine emotion, no doubt, but hardly
>>important when one looks at the definitions touted here as to when a phone
>>becomes "not new". But VERY important if one is looking to throw a fit of
>>self-righteous outrage in order to save a few bucks. Frankly, I think we
>>could do without that sort of person in our lives.
>>
>
>
> Michael - is this the nick you're posting under now?!??

I flatter myself that I am a little less rabid that Michael, Tim!

[Unkit]

So, you can if a car yard had a car there for people to open and close doors, sit and fart in, but not actually drive, that would not be a demo model?

If a phone gets taken out of the box, it has been used. Look up a dictionary for the definition of used.

I don't want anyone's finger prints on anything I buy.... not that I would ever be gullible enough to buy a mobile phone over the phone.