One Year Later, Zer01 Web Site Disappears 155
alphadogg writes "Zer01 Mobile — making promises of flat rate, no contract, unlimited cell phone service — made its grand entrance at the annual CTIA wireless convention about a year ago, but now the company's Web site has disappeared. The site recently began redirecting visitors to Google.com. Zer01, which was lauded for its plans in the mainstream press, aligned itself with a multilevel marketing company called Global Verge (whose founder had earlier been convicted of securities fraud), and the two companies began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program. (Since then, Global Verge and Zer01 parted ways and Global Verge filed a lawsuit against its former partner.) But no mobile service from Zer01 ever materialized. Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment. But as late as the fall CTIA show in October, Zer01's CEO was still promising to launch the mobile service."
MLM Scam strikes again? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, based on no further information than that in the article... can you say Multi-level marketing scam? I knew you could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MLM Scam strikes again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"like those herbal juices you see advertised on the back of peoples cars"
You mean the ones that get sold with a pitch that makes them out to be some elixir of eternal youth? While the scheme may be legitimate, I've yet to see it being used in conjunction with a product that wasn't a load of horseshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tupperware parties ?
Re:MLM Scam strikes again? (Score:4, Informative)
"multi level, or network marketing is a legal scheme provided that there is a tangible product or service in the mix,"
Even if there is a tangible product, it's still a scam. See the Illinois rulings against Scentura Creations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scentura [wikipedia.org]
In fact, most MLMs are violating one or more various laws in individual states.
The way MLMs are operated now is a violation of some state and some federal laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, for a MLM to be legal in the US, it has to sell more than 50% (iirc) of its products to non members. Currently the most successful MLM in the us only sells about 17% of its products to non members.
Too lazy to google, I looked it up a few days ago because someone tried to sucker me into going to a scamway meeting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I use this criteria for telling off a MLM distributor:
If you can get me a better deal by buying your product through you as opposed to what I can buy at the local Wal-Mart or from other local retailers, I'll buy it from you.
Sadly, I have yet to get a single MLM marketer to take me up on the offer. The truth is they can't compete except on sky high promises and on schemes that ultimately put so many hands into the profit stream that you can't get a reasonably priced product even if you tried. In fact, as a
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head with your 'dreams' comment.
If you take a poll of the average person anywhere in the world and you ask them "would you like to have more of $dream in your life" 80% of them would answer yes to more than one of $dream, which could be TIME (a favourite of MLM's), money, posessions, even happiness or a bunch of others.
MLM schemes promise the chance to let you realise that dream, "If you work hard now on your "Independent Business" you can be "financially free" or you can "have two h
Re: (Score:2)
My old boss gave me a bottle of acai juice one time... not bad with Gosling's black seal rum. Just dilute the acai juice a bit first or its going to be really strong. Best use I could find for it. Personally, every time I see one of those MonaVie stickers on someone's car I mentally substitute the word idiot in its place.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but there is no such thing as real MLM. It’s just a term, pyramid scheme criminal organizations use, to describe themselves, so they officially can stay legal. In reality, there is no difference between MLM and pyramid schemes. They are the same. Their purpose is fraud. Always. No exceptions.
MLM is too polite a term (Score:5, Interesting)
Scam is right. Multilevel marketing makes it almost seem legitimate, which apparently it wasn't.
BTW - I'm using the word "apparently" in the "please don't sue me" sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Are you scared? Of a bunch of criminals?
There I said it: MLM = pyramid scheme = fraud/scam = criminals. Always. Period.
It‘s the whole and only point. And they not only know it, but that’s the whole and only reason they did it. Also always. Also Period.
Come and try to sue me, fuckers. I’ll rip your balls off trough your throat!
Re:MLM Scam strikes again? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the summary:
What more do you need to know?
Re: (Score:2)
What other kind of place that charges you to work comes to mind? Strip clubs.
Any others?
When will people learn (Score:1)
Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment.
Seriously? How people ever think this sort of plan makes fiscal sense and isn't at all dodgy I will never understand.
Re:When will people learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will people learn (Score:4, Funny)
Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.
Compared to what? The average person? That's impossible. The top 5% of people at math and logical reasoning? Well, they would be by definition. Compared with the level of math proficiency and logical reasoning -you- think they should be at? If that's the case, I'd argue you have unrealistic expectations. Compared to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When will people learn (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not implying that I expect the majority of people to be "good" at math and logic, I just expect them to not be retarded either. Clearly I'm going to have to work on my expectations, as they are off a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's rational to join an MLM if you're high enough on the pyramid. Speaking for my self, the reason I don't join these things is that 1. I "know" (or believe that I know) I am very low on the chain; 2. I'm a bad salesperson anyways because I have trouble buying into lies.
I've never even bothered to compute my expected payoff, mostly because of the uncertainty associated with point 1., supra.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you happened to be one of the initial "founders" of the MLM or are a close buddy to the founder and are in on the scheme from the beginning, yeah, you can live a cushy life without much effort. Otherwise, good luck with that.
Of course that could be said about any sort of scheme.
What is sad, however, is that the effort to put together most schemes generally take more time, effort, and money to get started than doing a "legitimate" business. The problem is that the mentality of those who are planning sch
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.
Compared to what?
Thank you for providing that excellent example of how most people are bad at logical reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that most people are bad at flying, jumping over the grand canyon, time travel, and teleportation. You determine a set of objective critera to form a test and see what the mean score is. If the mean score is above 50%, then most people are good at that task.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have some tests to administer to some subjects in Arizona.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 50% of the population has below average intelligence, by definition. What is even scarier to think about is that they vote too (in places with elected representatives).
The problems with most geeks is that they tend to hang out in circles where there are substantial social filters to weed out those with lower intelligence, and you tend to think that average intelligence is somebody who can do a derivative in their sleep and understands the concept of a coefficient of friction from a mathematical viewp
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.
No there's not! I would never believe a statistic I didn't make up myself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can be bad at math without being worse than average. It's possible for the average to be bad. If 80% of people answer 5 when you ask them for the square root of 36, then 80% of people are bad at math.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.
Failing to undertake this could result in children being left behind. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. Thus, we must allow not allow inflexible principles o
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.
Can't we just edit Wikipedia instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no no no, you intolerant clod! Who are you to say that the square root of 36 is 5? I choose to believe the square root of 36 is 7, because that works for me. To say my opinion is incorrect is intolerant!
Re: (Score:2)
You're not describing postmodernism--you're describing religion.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be bad at math without being worse than average.
But you still have a standard there you're not admitting: your evidently unrealistic expectations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Most people are worse at math than..." what?
A horse that can count to three with his hoof? Well, it is his left hoof, and we all know left hoofedness is a sign of intelligence.
Re:When will people learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning. The sooner you accept that, the sooner the world will suddenly make sense.
Meh. Many people are greedy fools who think they're smarter than average and can't be easily tricked. Con artists have time-tested, good methods to exploit these attributes. Pyramid schemes are actually a great tool for exploiting people who think they're smarter than average - after all they only have to con X other people into the scam and then they're set. Clearly they're going to be able to find X other people who are dumber than they are that they can exploit and get money out of. And the X other people they con into the scam? Who cares - they're idiots and shouldn't have let themselves get conned into a pyramid scheme...
Nobody in a pyramid scheme thinks they're going to be left holding the bag at the end. That's how pyramid schemes work. They work great even if all of the participants are fully aware of the fact that they're in a pyramid scheme because everyone at every level is convinced that it's only the suckers below them who are going to lose their shirts and that their own risk is minimal. Even if everyone has awesome logical reasoning skills if they start from a faulty premise (i.e. I'm too smart to be left holding the bag at the end of this scam) they're going to reach a faulty conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Greed. See the mortgage collapse. A majority of those people were good at math and reasoning, but they were greedy. They thought they could cut a few corners and make it big.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People in financial trouble tend to get desperate and throw all logic out the door. I got taken for an incredibly stupid scam, once. It was one of those "The post office is hiring. Pay us for the training kit" scams, and I cannot stress hard enough that it was stupid. But, I had an unemployed wife and a baby to support, and I had just lost my job.
Things seemed desperate, and in those situations, people tend to throw logic out the door. So, the problem isn't just that most people are stupid, and some of us a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed is probably the greatest foe of common-sense.
I say "probably" only because I think religion is neck-and-neck.
Combine the two, and, well...you end up with the likes of the Trinity Broadcast Network and Joel Osteen.
Re: (Score:2)
"Combine the two, and,"
You end up with our government for the past half century.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only 2010. We haven't had half a century yet :)
People never learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But maybe the next one is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Next thing you'll say is that lotteries are a waste of money, and horoscopes aren't real.
Bet you don't visit church on Sundays, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Next thing you'll say is that lotteries are a waste of money . . .
Depends what your expectations are. I don't expect to win but can't help the excited anticipation which I get when I check the numbers. That excitement cost me one pound. Good investment if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
A fact is that poor people love to buy lotto tickets ... using money.
Another fact is that the US is perhaps the only country in the world, where the poorer you are, the fatter you are, because of food quality issues.
Combine those two facts, and the parent post, and the GP post, and I think I see an interesting weight loss program developing... Weight loss lotto... Every pound below "obese" equals one govt sponsored lotto ticket.
My idea is probably the best "healthcare system" idea in several years... certai
Re:People never learn (Score:4, Informative)
A simple adage - "If it's too good to be true, it probably is". People never seem to learn it. Always falling for scams. I'm not surprised.
it -probably- is. Even you hedged your wording, because even you know sometimes it just really is as good as the promise. Lots of stuff seems too good to be true, but delivers. Enough that its often hard for even a fairly intelligent and rational person to really know.
I mean, who'd believe linux, or bsd, or asterix, or postgresql, or apache, ... were all free. I've met people who were skeptical, who wanted to know what the catch was...
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't, they're just part of the most subtle pyramid scheme ever...they've even hooked you!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, who'd believe linux, or bsd, or asterix, or postgresql, or apache, ... were all free. I've met people who were skeptical, who wanted to know what the catch was...
The catch is that they typically require some effort and expertise on your part to make them useful. They're not generally fully-productized turnkey solutions.
Some of us like it that way by comparison with the alternatives, but the catch is there.
Re: (Score:2)
"People never seem to learn it. Always falling for scams. I'm not surprised."
Even if people did learn it, there are new suckers being born every minute. See also: Construction in earthquake/flood areas, regulations on financial industries, international bodies to avoid war, etc.
Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment."
The only newsworthy part of this is that Slashdot and others thought this business model was newsworthy in the first place.
It's a Pyramid Scheme with the phrase "Cell Phone" tacked on, anyone who bought into this deserved what they got.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amway actually sells products. They're a bit odd, but for a lonely bachelor or housewife, having a sales person turn up at your door and let you know about deals on things you actually use like plates and dishes and paper towels can be helpful. And for a _modest_ percentage of households, it can be a few hours of work a week that feeds that fourth kid.
It's the high pressure "make your friends into salespeople, that makes you money" that makes them an addictive and much hated pyramid scheme. But they've mana
Re: (Score:2)
Feeds the fourth kid? Not hardly. A few m
The human condition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cosmetics are generally useless from a utilitarian standpoint, and yet mass marketing pushes that shit out to the female demographic as if they would evaporate without it, and now we're stuck with the fucking Barbie generation. Give somebody the hope that you can fulfill their dream, and you will have their wallet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cosmetics have been a part of human life for a lot longer than Estee Lauder. From the Ancient Egyptians [king-tut.org.uk] to the Greeks [fjkluth.com], to the Native Americans [ethnicpaintings.com] - the idea of applying colour to your face or other parts of your body for one reason or another has been prevalent for thousands of years. Typically it's done to influence others' view of you - to find you attractive, or scary, or powerful. You may not consider that utilitarian, but do you dress entirely in hessian sack cloth? No? Then are your clothes strictly util
Re: (Score:2)
My T-Shirts and Jeans, made in Pakistan / China, are cheaper than a sack... In fact I've been considering the price of coin-operated laundry, and how close we are to the point that buying new clothes every week becomes cheaper than washing them...
Of course we've far since gone past that point when you count full-service laundry, particularly that found in hotels...
Re: (Score:2)
but you'll find that their societies don't emphasize the use of cosmetics as being attractive.
That's rather the point, isn't it? Society -- in this case *heavily* influenced by marketing tactics -- does emphasize it. The question is, without those tactics, would the emphasis still be there? I would question that very much. (
Here's the interesting thing about it. Personally I find makeup distasteful... and most males I know do as well (though of course we tolerate it..). This led me to wonder, "Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, w
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective,
And then you'll get the perspective of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective,
And then you'll get the perspective of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?
I swore I saw one once. But it could have been a dream.
Re: (Score:2)
"Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, what other motivation is there?"
I think you're confusing "use of makeup" with the "use paint roller on eyelids" thing that some do. Good use of makeup goes almost completely unnoticed in the same way good editing in a movie goes almost completely unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Real original (Score:2)
could it be? (Score:4, Funny)
Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program.
And were those other people promised payment based on how many others they signed up? Was the payment structure a hierarchical top down system like a pyramid?
Our Old Friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn the link you provided requires Flash, I am so sorry to miss important opportunities... ;-(
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you Amway? [amway.com]
Or maybe Quixtar [quixtar.com]?
I had a girlfriend trick me into going to a quixtar meeting when they first started it up (forget the ploy she used, but she definitely wasn't up front about where we were going). Part way into the opening pitch I click, "WTF, you brought me to a amway meeting?!"
Her: "No, it's quixtar. It's totally different."
Me: "Ah.... no. It's not."
She was an english major so I forgave her for being tricked into joining a MLM scam.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is that the sex was non-existent?
Nope. I'm saying I forgave her for the stupidity and wrote it off as an english major thing (if she was smart she'd be doing a degree that could get her a job, or at least be planning on grad school). It's amazing how much stupid one can put up with in exchange for sex.
"You did what?!"
"Never mind just come to bed."
"OK"
Of course I married someone smart. It's great that the sex is good now, but you have to plan for your future because at the end of the day and when your libidos have hit rock bottom wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no apostrophe in "Grammar Nazis."
Further, vaporware would probably be an abstract noun.
Don't infer hostility from a lawsuit. (Score:5, Informative)
Post makes the point that Global Verge is suing Zer01.
Don't infer hostility!!!!!
Collusive (friendly) lawsuits are a fraudulent way one person can transfer money to another person (himself?), thereby dodging legitimate creditors.
Fyi.
Need more coops (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of multi tier marketing schemes, we just need more cooperatives: owned and run by members, for the benefit of the members!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you expect to go into partnership with someone without putting in any equity? If you don't put something in, you're not a partner -you're an employee.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true at all.
If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.
You don't have to actually put money down to be a business partner. It's the usual case of course, but there's no requirement for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?
Taking them on as an employee is only slightly less risky.
This isn't just the case in high tech. From industrial rubber products to f
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if it's a stupid move or an unlikely move, it's a possibility and hence your "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" isn't true
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
So now you are claiming it is illegal to be a partner in a business without putting money up front into the business?
Your statement: "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" is simply 100% false, incorrect, a lie.
Seriously, you want to stick by that claim? Do you have a legal reference for it???
[Note I wasn't thinking vendor/client lists when I said "contacts" you invented that.]
Re: (Score:2)
Two parties legally capable of formulating a contract
The object of the contract
The consideration ("thing given") by each side;
A contract that is one-sided (that you don't put anything into, or that is disproportionate to the benefits) is easily voidable, and WILL be voided by outside parties in, say, a bankruptcy, where the legal presumption will be that it was made to defraud the estate of the bankrupt. It will also be voided by your "partner" should they decide that they
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?
I'd have thought that you'd generally only be at risk if you poached someone from another employer. If they're no longer employed by them (and there's no enforceable non-compete agreement in place) then there's really no comeback by the ex-employer. After all, if they really wanted to keep their former employee's expertise then they would still be employing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with no formal non-compete, the former employee is not allowed to use the previous employers customer and supplier lists. They are not the employee's property - they're part of the "work-for-hire" product.
Hope this clears it up a bit. It's a land-mine out there, and nowhere near as simple as things used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, if they had come up with a viable product, then they would be a legitimate business and the people scammed would be either investors, or retailers. The only difference between them and a hot dog vendor, or a guy who sells cellphones at the mall, would be the location.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the expected returns on the investment does not meet the expected payouts and the difference is made up by new contributors then it is by definition a pyramid scheme.
Social security funds are invested in treasuries. The expected returns on those are crap (since interest rates are being held low). And of course the Treasury doesn't have the money to pay back those bonds anyway - the government balance sheet is in the red. Of course it can print it, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems.
What wo
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're abusing the definition of pyramid scheme. What you're really looking for is "poorly managed system." Now, excuse me, I need to get "pyramid scheme" to a doctor to see how bad your abuse was. You'll be hearing from its lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
NO, SSA isn't a poorly managed system. And while it's not totally unfair to call it a pyramid scheme, they're pretty up-front about it. The laws governing SSA pretty much state right out that you're paying in now to support current recipients, and when you need a payout
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just poorly managed, it's impossible for it to do what it claims to do even with great management (well short of magical prescient management).
But yes pyramid scheme isn't quite true, because the government can change the rules whenever they want to. It is a pyramid scheme under the current rules - it wasn't when it began, but things have changed such as life expectancies.
Re: (Score:2)
Demographics were such that wasn't going to be a problem.
Basically life expectancies were lower, so people would be taking from the system for a shorter period of time on average.
And there wasn't a "bulge" in the population distribution to magnify that problem.
Basically it wasn't a pyramid, it was a rectangle - you didn't need more people starting to pay in than there were people stopping paying in.
Some entering the workforce at 18 in 1940 had a life expectancy of about 68. Retirement age was 65. So they a
A typosquatter is reeling them in (Score:3, Interesting)
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/ [enom.com]
Name Server: NS1.PARKED.COM
Name Server: NS2.PARKED.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 07-mar-2010
Creation Date: 13-mar-2009
Expiration Date: 13-mar-2011
The only difference is that it's O1 (the letter 'O'), not 01
Seems to me that, to add insult to injury, the typo-squatter picked the better domain name to begin with...
Paying Money to Work (Score:2)
...and the two companies began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program.
Any time that you're required to pay money to work - and I mean this outside of regular expenses such as supplies and travel, etc. - it's probably a good idea to turn around and run as far away as you can. A monthly fee to be part of a sales program? This is even worse than the typical MLM such as Primerica or Quixtar. At least those programs offer some sort of good or service in return, despite having an initial start-up cost.
But to collect money like that on a monthly basis and to vanish?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the government was to use scams instead of tax, it could be funded completely by fools! ...Then I realised this is already the case.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
We call them "lotteries".
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. You, I, we are all fools.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I think Lotteries should only be used to fund math education... you will know the funds aren't needed any more when you stop making money.
Re: (Score:2)
True, I need the fool's money so I can give it to the government as taxes so they can give it back to the fools. Wait - that doesn't make sense does it?
Open a church like the rest of us have...Paying taxes is bullshit...
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
You pay for the right to use the brand name and products, while also tying into the marketing that they provide. Your profits don't rely on how many people you've gotten to open their own franchises.