Mobile Phone Operator Lobbyists Say No Laws Necessary To Prevent 'Bill Shock'
from the because-it-doesn't-happen? dept
For nearly a decade we've been covering stories of people getting bill shock when mobile phone bills show up that are in the tens of thousands of dollars. The issue, of course, is that mobile operators do a dreadful job informing their customers of the fees they may be facing. And, while it would be quite easy for the providers to set up some kind of alert (or credit card-style temporary block) if a bill starts to go outside of the "norm," none of the mobile operators seem interested in doing this.Over in the UK they've put in place laws to prevent such ridiculous bill shock situations, and regulators in the US are considering the same... but the lobbyists for the mobile operators, CTIA, are protesting that such rules are "unnecessary." That would be a lot more convincing if people didn't send in stories about ridiculous bills every few weeks. CTIA also claims that "Members have adopted internal practices and procedures to remediate billing concerns directly with their customers," but in practice those "remediation" practices seem to basically be "wait until the press starts paying attention, and then finally back down."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill shock, regulations
Companies: ctia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nate
Be careful about the "If your not doing anything wrong" logic. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you won't mind if they place cameras throughout your home, office, car, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of times we here stories of kids racking up these bills. If the kid is not responsible enough to use a cell phone within the plan that the parent has selected for him/her, then he/she should not be getting a cell phone. Some kids may not have been told whats extra and what isn't, and any bill they rack up is the parent's fault for not properly instructing them as to what they're allowed to do with the phone.
Anyway, I think it all boils down to responsibility. Should there be laws to prevent irresponsible behavior? No. Would it be nice if the mobile phone operators sent bill warnings? Yes. In the end, its about cost and profits. The phone companies don't want to lose the profits from the runaway bills, and they don't want to set up or run a system that alerts users to a potentially runaway bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mixed on this matter
The worst example is the "unlimited text" plan that actually has a really high limit (in the fine print) and when the teen exceeded the limit, the company charged him an astronomical bill. That is very irresponsible advertising and business behavior by the company: don't call something "unlimited" when it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
Let's try one that fits a little better:
If the cable industry were allowed to do what the wireless industry does, they would simply allow you to watch pay-per-view channels by doing nothing more than tuning to them...no ordering...no extra button presses...no messages on the screen...no additional notification other than an ambiguous sentence buried in the small print of your original contract. Then, at the end of the month, they bill you for 150 hours of pay-per-view programming at $10 per hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
Actually, yes you do - it's required by law! That's why all hair dryers come with a warning label on the cord.
It's also why ladders have anywhere from 12-17 warning labels on them! To protect the company from lawsuits of people who hurt themselves and then say "No one ever told me it wasn't safe to use the top of the ladder as a step!"
McDonald's coffee cups now warn you that the contents are "hot"! The lady who won her lawsuit after burning herself with a cup of hot McDonald's coffee had to be a moron to not know the coffee was hot, but she's a rich moron now!
I don't necessarily agree with any or all of these examples but my opinion won't change the mind of a jury.
In the case of the phone companies, good customer service practices would practically force some sort of consumer protection. Of course, much like the software and hardware industries, it's difficult to justify the cost for such programs because taking advantage of these circumstances is profitable despite the inherent "sleaze" factor involved. They would much rather collect every last dime, then spend millions on marketing to attract new customers when the dissatisfied ones leave. Customer service and tech support people hate this mode of operation but marketing folks love it because they get to travel to trade shows hawking the services at the expense of the company (consumer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
Oh, and you're a buffoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter
#1 "red herring": any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue (If you were talking about fish then the rest is irrelevant.)
Doesn't seem to apply here since I'm referring to customer warnings required by law and/or legal proceedings which is the path the conversation went when Stuart asked: "Do we really need to tell people not to use the hair dryer in the shower?". My examples are not a diversion/distraction from this point. Epic fail on your behalf.
#2 "She did not get rich": I'll grant you SOME leeway here since the definition is relative to each individual but from my perspective, any amount of money between 480K and 640K would certainly change my financial status to "rich". Since rich is a relative term and I was the one using it - again fail on your behalf.
#3 McDonalds admitted to keeping the coffee hotter so that it lasted longer." Absolutely incorrect and a blatantly false statement!
(Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)Quote: "McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste."
These things you pull out of your rear orifice smell like crap probably because they amount to as much. Epic fail and outright lie on your behalf.
McDonald's was found to be 80% at fault and the customer 20% - this indeed was not entirely McD's fault even though the coffee was indeed served hotter than one might expect. However, a little research (hopefully you don't need a definition here just some experience) shows even this is debatable:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]"
"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".[20]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Thank you for your complete waste of time here, hopefully "Not again" is when we'll see you post and not just your board name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember this fiasco?
http://media.grc.com/mp3/VerizonCantCount.mp3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Responsibility
So, I plopped down a fin and the guy handed me a dart. I threw it an popped a ballon. Then...he handed me another dart. I threw it, too. He kept handing me darts, one at a time.
Finally, he said I had popped enough balloons to win the prize! Of course, he said I owed him $50 for it! $5 for each additional dart!
I told him he didn't disclose that he was charging $5 per dart before I started the game. He told me...you didn't ask. Gotcha!
This is the game played by the cell phone companies and it is far too much to ask for consumers to learn the ins and outs of all of the contracts we enter into in order to find and understand all of the hidden "gotchas!". Saying we all have a responsibility to be experts on these services is simply making excuses for the industry and their shady skills at hiding important information within pages and pages of useless stuff.
Honestly, do you know every part of your contract for cable service? What about power? Water? Land line phone? Internet? Your mortgage/rent?
Without some sort of safeguards, a cell phone company could offer "Unlimited calling", but state in the small print that they will charge you $100 every time you press the "Send" button.
Any time a company provides a service for which they will bill after the fact for special options, there needs to be a clear communication of what is involved. At the very least, the first time a feature or service is used, a message should indicate that "this will cost $X per Y amount of use...is that okay?"
The world shouldn't be run like a cheap carnival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try this experiment. Go to a mobile carrier's brick and mortar store. Try to identify the most experienced salesperson and ask them a specific question about the pricing plan on your phone. Then go to another person who looks experienced and ask the same question. You will probably get two different answers if your question is specific to your plan. You can also try technical support if you want a third variation. And I am willing to bet that the phone company won't stand by the information you were given if there is a dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you go over seas and know that your phone will work for a small extra charge but data is very expensive so you decide not to use it. The phone decides to continually poll the server to check for new e-mail. You get an outrageous bill due to the phones operation but it must be your fault that the phone was programed that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2
Soon as you wrote that you lost ...EVERYONE.
Anyone that doesn't agree with #1 is not human
People that write BULLSHIT paragraphs about nothing are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say wha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the odds of collecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds of collecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds of collecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monthly cap
This is just like when you put a cap on the amount you can take out each day with your ATM card. You hit the monthly cap, your phone doesn't provide any more optional services.
Every honest provider should be happy with this without being forced to. It keeps customers from getting mad at them for surprise bills. The crooks won't like it, but that's what regulation is supposed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In each case they basically said to the phone company "I am never going to pay this, ever. So you have 2 choices, either you waive this bill and I remain your customer, or you don't and I switch to another carrier while you piss a lot more money up the wall trying to collect the debt."
And every time the carrier has eventually rolled over and waived the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]