Talk:FreedomPop

Dish Satelite Investment In Clearwire

Undoubtedly a lot of frenzy in the scramble for bandwidth with capacity constraints. The asynchronous capability to Dish via Clear/Sprint is potentially very promising for expanding market penetration. FreedomPop's sleeve could easily be adaptable for delivery of Disk content to the Apple platform. I will be citing sources for inclusion into the article as these developments occur. Wikipietime (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Shipping Delays

People on twitter are starting to report shipping delays and backorders on the devices.

https://twitter.com/KDzeroJEJ/status/359358922710200321

https://twitter.com/neohemp/status/353485873125396482 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.190.242 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• The above comment was undeleted, as searching for RS (that is, reliable sources as opposed to these sources) to support the point will improve the article. --Lexein (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Policy secrecy" moved here for discussion

This entire section falls under the category of Original research, as it has not been discussed in independent reliable sources:

FreedomPop's robots.txt include entries such as "Disallow: /terms.htm" that instruct archival services such asarchive.org from displaying old versions of the privacy policy, terms of service, and coverage (telecommunication).<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20131022084935/http://www.freedompop.com/robots.txt</ref>

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

independent reliable sources is deceptive. Identifying reliable sources is accurate. Archive.org is certainly an independent reliable source. If you wish to oppose this content, do so based on actual policy, not deceptive links that misrepresent what policy is. --Elvey (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no deception intended, obviously. Let me not mislead any further: read all of WP:RS, WP:V, then read WP:OR. Has anyone, anywhere, independent of FreedomPop, published an article which can be considered reliable, pointing out this fact that you have observed about FreedomPop's robots.txt? It seems not. Web.archive.org (the archive itself) patently is not considered by anyone to be a reliable source, but it's a reliable archive of whatever sources it archives, given that it automatically abides by current contents of /robots.txt. But let's be clear: Robots.txt does not constitute discussion in a reliable source, whether primary or secondary, and it makes no statement about "secrecy". What you have here, you pointing out and commenting on the contents of robots.txt, is WP:Original research. It's you discussing the thing. We don't do that except for neutrally describing film plots. We will certainly report what reliable others have written about FreedomPop's /robots.txt, whenever they do. --Lexein (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "secrecy" is editorial, but it's not OR. (Normally, twitter is not an RS but Jared Newman is a journalist.)

Re Archive.org:Terminolology is in dispute; you dispute my assertion that Archive.org is certainly an independent reliable source. Archive.org (the archive itself) is an independent reliable source of information about the content of whatever sources it archives. It's not a primary source. When it comes to simple facts - what's in the company's site's robots.txt, or what the company's annual revenue is, we generally consider the company web site a reliable source. From the policy: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The policy does not say that anything that has not been discussed in independent reliable sources is Original research. That is a misrepresentation of policy. Even if Archive.org is not an independent reliable source, you haven't shown that the content is against policy. If you can quote from the 3 policy pages you referenced to support your position, please do. I don't think you can. Do you still oppose? Can you suggest a compromise, or should we seek DR? --Elvey (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "anything that has not been discussed in independent reliable sources is Original research." I said, and meant, that you commenting on a thing in the body of an article, without being able to cite any independent reliable source(s) which discuss the thing, is WP:OR. And yes, a claim of "secrecy" is WP:OR - it's not a reasonable paraphrase or quote of the event or the source. A Twitter post doesn't constitute an RS. The fact, plus a Twitter source, makes it trivia, which lots of editors, including me, wouldn't put in. As soon as other sources discuss this substantively, I'll have no problem with putting the item in. It's an encyclopedia. WP:Five pillars. Think in terms of what matters to readers in 10 or 20 years. I'm not yelling at you, so don't yell at me. If you strongly feel that DR is needed, feel free. But please read WP:TIGERS. --Lexein (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong about twitter; see the policy at WP:TWITTER.--Elvey (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Commentary removed from article to here for discussion

Per the company press release [read below excerpt or google it], it stated 3G is free. I pointed this error out to freedompop's facebook wall and they deleted my comments. If this is an error, they should apologize for the error and retract the statement. I've been a customer with freedompop since January 2013 and I find them to be misleading/obfuscatory! The only way to prevent freedompop from misleading the consumer, people need to step up the plate and file formal complains to FTC, BBB, and California Office of Attorney General Consumer Affairs, otherwise they will continue the deception.

"FreedomPop Expands Network To Include Nationwide LTE Wireless Internet Service

America's free mobile company adds Sprint LTE network access and launches its new FreedomSpot 5580 LTE mobile hotspot

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 6, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- FreedomPop today announced a major new milestone: its expansion to Sprint's LTE network, guaranteeing high-speed LTE coverage across the US. Along with its network growth, the company is introducing a new FreedomSpot 5580 LTE mobile hotspot that will provide FreedomPop customers 500 MBs a month of 100 percent free access to 4G LTE network speeds with nationwide backup access on 3G." -- Vegiemite123 (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do consumer advocacy, but we report on it when it is written about in independent reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FreedomPop's Lies and Fact Suppression

FreedomPop lies, for example, when it says it stopped charging 99¢ inactivity fees. But currently the article reports this as fact. Our WP:NPOV policy states, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The company's billing statements, from its website, are, if anything, more authoritative regarding said fees than the company's press releases, which are also from its website. Uploading a screen shot showing FreedomPop charing 99¢ inactivity fees for the past three months risks violating our copyright-related policies. WP:SELFPUB says self-published sources may not be used as sources of information about themselves if the material is unduly self-serving. Promoting the false claim that they aren't charging 99¢ inactivity fees qualifies as "unduly self-serving" in my eyes.

Unfortunately, there are a number of lies like this going unchecked. FreedomPop has even been blocking posts to, and deleting comments from, its facebook page. Vegiemite123 attests to this, above.--Elvey (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

some unwarranted POV shifting has not been remedied. --Elvey (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing {NPOV} & {COI} tags. I reduced the promotional material and cleaned neutrality. Let me know. Jppcap (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

FreedomPop Throttling

Well my edits of the FreedomPop Throttling got removed from the page because of "unreliable sources" but there is proof of this. Go here: https://forums.freedompop.com/discussion/10317/freedompop-unlimited-data-faq/p1 and here: https://forums.freedompop.com/discussion/9130/slow-data-service/p1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.229.238 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Check your user page for an introduction and welcome message. Your contributions are desired, but there are rules about what reliable sources are. Scr★pIron^IV 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede paragraph in past tense

The lede paragraph of this article was edited yesterday to change it from present tense to past:

• "FreedomPop was a wireless internet and mobile phone service provider"
• "The company provided wireless data, voice, and text services"
• "The company provided free mobile services"

This use of the past tense connotes that the company is no longer in business—but that's not true, so I've reversed the edit. Also worth noting is that the edit was carried out by an apparently-new user using the username "S.stokols", which resembles the name of the company's CEO; the user is very likely an imposter. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Company

The article appears to read highly critically & seems to lack a neutral viewpoint. I feel that the authors are unhappy with the Company & seem to be writing to imply that the company is very bad.Lamb104 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV - Billing and Public Perception

Examples:

• "FreedomPop has shady practices when it comes to billing. There are no human customer service, use at your own risk..."

• "FreedomPop provide poor services and a custom service through email that has no power to help their customers when it comes to billing."

I'm all for a well-sourced Reception section, but these sections mostly read like negative customer reviews. Thysiazo (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be cleaned up so that only sourced criticism is included, then remove the "dispute" label. Jazzbox (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)