4 ms·

true but as OP said, such overage charge is plain robbery.

eropple 15y ago
That's silly. These SIM cards are used for very low monthly transfer. The companies agree to them _because_ the devices won't use much bandwidth. Properly configured devices (i.e., when SIM cards aren't being stolen and used in laptops) will not ever encounter these overages. There's no "robbery" involved.
- marshray 15y ago
  Sure seems like someone should have looked at their data bill more often than every four months. So did they shut off the SIM once they knew it was stolen and being used, or did they allow her to rack up those ridiculous charges on purpose?
- nagrom 15y ago
  So, why don't they internally cap the data available to a card of that type? This is a technical solution that would take what, 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Rather than allowing someone to run up $193k of overage charges (all the while cackling manically and rubbing their hands), why not behave in a reasonable fashion? In effect, this charge is a life sentence to a person. You don't expect the lady to pay this back anytime in the next 30 years, do you? Bear in mind that she needs to fulfill her regular needs with a criminal record hanging over her head. And since the fine is administered by a court, I don't imagine that it will be defaultable. If an individual did this to someone, there's no doubt that it would be looked-upon differently. It's done by a corporation with no physical body and people defend it. The goal of a society should, in general, be to construct a reasonable, fair place for people to live. This woman did not get treated fairly.
  - eropple 15y ago
    Sure, a technical solution can and, probably, will be looked at at this point. That said, your blithe assumption that it's twenty minutes of work does belie an ignorance of how this stuff works. And you're castigating them for not putting one in place when it hasn't been, to the best of my knowledge, a significant issue in the past. Had there been a previous rash of SIM card thefts, something very well may have been done in the past. In other words, I am reasonably certain that you have decided on your conclusion and are working backwards from there (see your nonsense about "cackling maniacally"). I am rather certain that this is an unacceptable way of looking at business or law. As for whether the fine is equitable--well, let's see: * The overage charges were part of a legal contract and agreed to by both consenting parties. * An third-party agent--the thief--unlawfully incurred charges on behalf of the power company (charges that, one can presume, would have been an acceptable, if regrettable, cost of doing business had they been incurred, for example, due to a software fault in their power meters). What do you think should happen? Do you think the telco should not be paid according to the agreement for their account? Should the power company pay it despite the SIM card against which the charges were levied being stolen? Or should the fine be levied against the thief who committed the wrong? As is likely apparent, I am of the opinion that the thief should be forced to make good on her damages. They are not illusory damages; _someone_ will be made less than whole if the thief is not expected to provide compensation. And, no, I don't expect her to pay it back. But it is her obligation to make whole those she has wronged. Doing otherwise is neither reasonable nor fair. The unforeseen cost of her action is quite high. That's unfortunate. But, at the end of the day: if you commit a crime against another person or entity, you _are_ culpable for the results. If she did not want to be held responsible for the results of stealing another's property, she shouldn't have stolen it.
    - Joeri 15y ago
      The woman was not a party to the contract, so the damages should not be the contractual damages but the real damages incurred by telstra. Remember that what she actually stole was bandwidth from telstra's network, the method by which she did it hardly matters. $10.000 is a way more reasonable figure, even taking a profit margin for telstra into account. Asking for 200k in damages is using RIAA math. Even at 200k, there has to be a sense of scale. Essentially this decision destroys her life. Leeching a bunch of movies over the course of 4 months is hardly worth having your life destroyed over. The crime does not match the punishment.
      - eropple 15y ago
        How exactly do you calculate what a profit margin for Telstra is? This I'm honestly curious about, as it seems to come off as rather kneejerk, more "this is what I think you _deserve_" than "this is what was agreed to as part of the contract that governed the use of this device." Personally, I find the market value of the service - i.e., the stated rates of the contract - to be a reasonable starting point. If one finds this to be too high, perhaps one should not have stolen things in the first place.
        derefr 15y ago
        She didn't know the "market value of the service." She knew the market value of consumer 3G, assuredly, but I wouldn't expect anyone who wasn't a telecom contract negotiator to know what power companies would be paying. Thus, your last sentence is meaningless: I suspect that she would indeed have found this "too high" if she had known, but rather would have been willing to pay a consumer-rated fine. Say I steal a car. This car has a child in the back seat, but I am not aware of that. In fact, I go on being unaware of this for the whole time I am in possession of the car (and the child is fine, somehow.) When I am caught, do I receive the punishment for kidnapping, or simply for grand theft auto?
        eropple 15y ago
        In the U.S.? Kidnapping, almost assuredly. Probably depends on the prosecutor. As it should - you kidnapped a kid. Doesn't matter if you knew he was in the backseat; you did it. In Australia? I haven't the faintest idea.
- jeza 15y ago
  It sounds to me more like Telstra's standard rip off charging. Their excess usage charge across all plans (I think it's 25c/MB though has been higher in the past) and causes all kinds of problems where people (the ones who don't understand what a megabyte is) get $1,000+ bills without really doing all that much. A lot of these cases end up going to the ombudsman for resolution, so it's a hassle for all involved.

That's silly. These SIM cards are used for very low monthly transfer. The companies agree to them _because_ the devices won't use much bandwidth. Properly configured devices (i.e., when SIM cards aren't being stolen and used in laptops) will not ever encounter these overages. There's no "robbery" involved.

marshray 15y ago
Sure seems like someone should have looked at their data bill more often than every four months. So did they shut off the SIM once they knew it was stolen and being used, or did they allow her to rack up those ridiculous charges on purpose?
nagrom 15y ago
So, why don't they internally cap the data available to a card of that type? This is a technical solution that would take what, 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Rather than allowing someone to run up $193k of overage charges (all the while cackling manically and rubbing their hands), why not behave in a reasonable fashion? In effect, this charge is a life sentence to a person. You don't expect the lady to pay this back anytime in the next 30 years, do you? Bear in mind that she needs to fulfill her regular needs with a criminal record hanging over her head. And since the fine is administered by a court, I don't imagine that it will be defaultable. If an individual did this to someone, there's no doubt that it would be looked-upon differently. It's done by a corporation with no physical body and people defend it. The goal of a society should, in general, be to construct a reasonable, fair place for people to live. This woman did not get treated fairly.
- eropple 15y ago
  Sure, a technical solution can and, probably, will be looked at at this point. That said, your blithe assumption that it's twenty minutes of work does belie an ignorance of how this stuff works. And you're castigating them for not putting one in place when it hasn't been, to the best of my knowledge, a significant issue in the past. Had there been a previous rash of SIM card thefts, something very well may have been done in the past. In other words, I am reasonably certain that you have decided on your conclusion and are working backwards from there (see your nonsense about "cackling maniacally"). I am rather certain that this is an unacceptable way of looking at business or law. As for whether the fine is equitable--well, let's see: * The overage charges were part of a legal contract and agreed to by both consenting parties. * An third-party agent--the thief--unlawfully incurred charges on behalf of the power company (charges that, one can presume, would have been an acceptable, if regrettable, cost of doing business had they been incurred, for example, due to a software fault in their power meters). What do you think should happen? Do you think the telco should not be paid according to the agreement for their account? Should the power company pay it despite the SIM card against which the charges were levied being stolen? Or should the fine be levied against the thief who committed the wrong? As is likely apparent, I am of the opinion that the thief should be forced to make good on her damages. They are not illusory damages; _someone_ will be made less than whole if the thief is not expected to provide compensation. And, no, I don't expect her to pay it back. But it is her obligation to make whole those she has wronged. Doing otherwise is neither reasonable nor fair. The unforeseen cost of her action is quite high. That's unfortunate. But, at the end of the day: if you commit a crime against another person or entity, you _are_ culpable for the results. If she did not want to be held responsible for the results of stealing another's property, she shouldn't have stolen it.
  - Joeri 15y ago
    The woman was not a party to the contract, so the damages should not be the contractual damages but the real damages incurred by telstra. Remember that what she actually stole was bandwidth from telstra's network, the method by which she did it hardly matters. $10.000 is a way more reasonable figure, even taking a profit margin for telstra into account. Asking for 200k in damages is using RIAA math. Even at 200k, there has to be a sense of scale. Essentially this decision destroys her life. Leeching a bunch of movies over the course of 4 months is hardly worth having your life destroyed over. The crime does not match the punishment.
    - eropple 15y ago
      How exactly do you calculate what a profit margin for Telstra is? This I'm honestly curious about, as it seems to come off as rather kneejerk, more "this is what I think you _deserve_" than "this is what was agreed to as part of the contract that governed the use of this device." Personally, I find the market value of the service - i.e., the stated rates of the contract - to be a reasonable starting point. If one finds this to be too high, perhaps one should not have stolen things in the first place.
      - derefr 15y ago
        She didn't know the "market value of the service." She knew the market value of consumer 3G, assuredly, but I wouldn't expect anyone who wasn't a telecom contract negotiator to know what power companies would be paying. Thus, your last sentence is meaningless: I suspect that she would indeed have found this "too high" if she had known, but rather would have been willing to pay a consumer-rated fine. Say I steal a car. This car has a child in the back seat, but I am not aware of that. In fact, I go on being unaware of this for the whole time I am in possession of the car (and the child is fine, somehow.) When I am caught, do I receive the punishment for kidnapping, or simply for grand theft auto?
        eropple 15y ago
        In the U.S.? Kidnapping, almost assuredly. Probably depends on the prosecutor. As it should - you kidnapped a kid. Doesn't matter if you knew he was in the backseat; you did it. In Australia? I haven't the faintest idea.
jeza 15y ago
It sounds to me more like Telstra's standard rip off charging. Their excess usage charge across all plans (I think it's 25c/MB though has been higher in the past) and causes all kinds of problems where people (the ones who don't understand what a megabyte is) get $1,000+ bills without really doing all that much. A lot of these cases end up going to the ombudsman for resolution, so it's a hassle for all involved.