Home » cell phone bill » Recent Articles:

Florida Woman Gets $201,000 T-Mobile Bill: Data Roaming Bill Shock Nightmare

A Miami woman fell to pieces when T-Mobile sent her a cell phone bill that was higher than the purchase price of many nice suburban homes, after a two-week trip to Canada turned into a data roaming disaster.

Celina Aarons is the latest victim of bill shock — when phone and cable companies send surprise bills that throw families into turmoil, begging for help from the provider that could either aggressively collect or save your sanity by reducing the bill.

Aarons appealed to WSVN Miami’s consumer reporter Patrick Fraser for help after the bill arrived.

“I was freaking out. I was shaking, crying, I couldn’t even talk that much on the phone,” Aarons said. “I was like my life is over!”

It turns out her deaf brother uses a phone on her account to communicate… a lot.  He routinely sends thousands of text messages a month, in addition to relying heavily on the mobile smartphone’s Internet access.  He had no idea a two-week trip to Canada would invoke an insanely high data roaming rate — $10 per megabyte.  Text messages sent while roaming in Canada run $0.20 each, with or without a texting plan.  Just running an online video at those rates will easily rack up charges well over $1,000.  And they did.

Unfortunately for Celina, T-Mobile claims to have sent a handful of warning messages — to her brother’s phone, never to hers.  He claims he never saw them.  She’s ultimately responsible for the bill, and she’s upset T-Mobile didn’t notify the primary account holder — her — of the rapidly accumulating roaming charges.  T-Mobile told her they don’t send such notifications for “privacy reasons.”

[flv width=”630″ height=”374″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSVN Miami Help Me Howard – High phone bill 10-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WSVN in Miami explains what happened when Celina Aarons received her 40+ page T-Mobile bill… for $201,000.  (4 minutes)

Life's for sharing a $201,000 cell phone bill.

That’s how parents end up receiving bill shock of their own, when children handed phones run up enormous charges mom and dad never learn about until the bill arrives in the mailbox.  By then, it’s too late.

The Federal Communications Commission was supposed to take direct action to put an end to bill shock by demanding carriers send clear warnings when usage allowances are used up or when roaming charges begin to accrue.  It was a priority for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, until wireless industry lobbyists convinced him to abandon the effort, choosing an industry-sponsored voluntary plan instead.

Genachowski quietly put the FCC’s own proposed bill shock regulations on hold, which also likely means an abdication of the agency’s responsibility to closely monitor the wireless industry’s adherence to its own voluntary guidelines.

The CTIA Wireless Association, the industry’s largest trade and lobbying group, will be coordinating the “early warning” program, but will take their time implementing it.  The industry wants until October 2012 to implement the first phase of its program, which will send text messages for usage allowance depletion and excessive usage charges.  It also wants even more time — April 2013 — before the industry is expected to adopt additional service alerts.

Genachowski: Abdicated his responsibility to protect consumers in favor of the interests of the wireless industry.

The wireless industry’s plan is based entirely on early warning text messages.  It does not provide any of the top-requested protections consumers want to end the wallet-biting:

  1. The ability to shut off services once usage allowances are depleted until the next billing cycle;
  2. An opt-in provision which requires customers to authorize additional charges before they begin;
  3. The ability to shut off services and features on individual handsets on their account;
  4. The ability to easily opt-out of all roaming services, so sky high excess charges can never be charged to their accounts;
  5. Provisions to require providers to eat the bill if it is demonstrated that warning messages never arrived;
  6. Fines and other punishments for carriers who fail to meet the provisions of either a regulated or voluntary plan.

The CTIA’s plan won’t stop some of the horror stories Genachowski spoke about earlier this year, when he was still advocating immediate action by the Commission.  Among them:

  • Nilofer Merchant: Racked up $10,000 in international roaming and overlimit fees while visiting Toronto.  AT&T waited until after she returned to the United States before notifying her of the charges.  They “generously” agreed to reduce the bill to $2,000, which they ultimately pocketed.
  • A woman who rushed to attend to her sister in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake found more tragedy when her provider billed her $34,000 in roaming charges;
  • A man whose limited data plan ran out faced $18,000 in overlimit fees before the provider notified him his bill was going to be higher than normal that month.

The wireless industry’s chief lobbyist, CTIA president Steve Largent, declared total victory.

“Today’s initiative is a perfect example of how government agencies and industries they regulate can work together under President Obama’s recent executive order directing federal agencies to consider whether new rules are necessary or would unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy,” Largent said.

Consumer groups are less excited.

Text message warnings or not, the wireless industry still wants to be paid.

Joel Kelsey, a policy analyst at public interest group Free Press, said he was skeptical providers would be making their customers their first priority under the voluntary program.

“Asking the uncompetitive wireless industry to self-police itself is like asking an addict to self-medicate,” said Kelsey. “The FCC is charged by Congress to protect consumers, and they should use their authority to write a rule that puts an end to $16,000 monthly cellphone bills.”

“Wireless carriers are not charities — they will make the most revenue they can from their user base,” Kelsey said. “And since competition is weak in this industry, there aren’t natural incentives for companies to be on their best behavior.”

T-Mobile, which is in the process of trying to merge with AT&T, has agreed to discount Aarons’ bill to $2,500 and give her six months to pay.  Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us, suspects that kind of charity won’t last long.

“This won’t happen again if AT&T merges with T-Mobile,” Earl suspects.

While $2,500 is a considerable discount over the original bill, customers who have suffered from bill shock would prefer an even better deal — no surprise charges at all.

That kind of deal is unlikely if the FCC continues to defer to the wireless industry, who have few incentives to provide it.

Consumers can reduce the chances of wireless bill shock by checking with their wireless provider to see if roaming services can be left turned off unless or until you activate them.  Many companies also offer smartphone applications to track usage and billing, useful if you have a family plan and want to verify who is doing what with their phone.  Avoid taking your cellphone on international trips, and that includes Canada.  If you need a cell phone abroad, we recommend purchasing a throwaway prepaid phone when you arrive and rely on that while abroad.  Such phones can be had for as little as $10, and per-minute rates are usually substantially lower than the roaming charges imposed by providers back home.

If you must travel with your phone, carefully consider roaming rates before you go.  Some carriers may offer international usage plans that discount usage fees.  You can use Wi-Fi to manage data sessions, but it’s best to avoid high bandwidth applications while abroad altogether.  One movie can cost a thousand dollars or more in international roaming charges.

While T-Mobile could have provided warnings to Aarons’ own phone as her bill began to skyrocket, T-Mobile’s bill was ultimately correct.  Wireless phone users must take personal responsibility for the use of phones on their account.  Aarons’ brother ignored the handful of warnings T-Mobile claims to have provided, and the agony of the resulting bill no doubt created tension inside that family.  Don’t let a wireless phone bill tear your family apart.  Take steps to protect yourself, because it’s apparent the FCC won’t anytime soon.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS NewsHour New Alerts to Stop Bill Shock 10-17-11.flv[/flv]

PBS NewsHour interviews FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about the pervasive problem of “bill shock,” and why the Commission elected to defer to the wireless industry to voluntarily alert consumers when their bills explode.  (7 minutes)

Canada’s Cellular Cartel: 3 Wireless Companies Control 94 Percent of the Market

Next time you wonder why you are paying substantially higher cell phone bills than your neighbors abroad, take note: just three cell phone companies control 94 percent of the wireless marketplace in Canada, with more than 23.5 million combined subscribers.  The four other significant carriers have a combined subscriber base of around 1.5 million, hardly worth noticing by the largest three:

Rogers Communications

The telecom giant Rogers controls the largest share of the Canadian wireless market with 9,127,000 subscribers as of the end of June.  Nearly 7.5 million of those customers are on two year contracts and pay an average bill of $70.07 per month.  Prepaid customers pay substantially less for their occasional-use phones: $16.14 a month.  Rogers adds more subscribers than it loses, picking up 591,000 new customers during the first quarter, while losing 456,000 current customers, winning a net gain of 135,000.

Data revenue is becoming increasingly important for Rogers, now constituting 35 percent of earnings for the company’s wireless division.

Bell

Coming in at second place is Bell Canada, with 7,283,000 customers.  Over 5.7 million are on contract, 1.6 million are using Bell prepaid phones.  Bell added just under 38,000 new customers last quarter, the smallest net add among the three largest providers.  The average contract customer pays Bell $63.18 a month; prepaid customers pay $16.88.

Telus Mobility

Telus, western Canada’s largest phone company, sells wireless service across the country and has become the third largest wireless provider with 5.8 million contract customers and 1.2 million prepaid clients.  Together, they pay an average of $58.88 a month.  Telus picked up 94,000 net additions last quarter, which is better than Bell but worse than Rogers.

Everyone Else

Among the rest, Saskatchewan’s phone company Sasktel had managed to reach 568,000 subscribers, mostly in the province, as of late March.  MTS Allstream Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manitoba Telecom came in with 489,722 customers.  Videotron, Quebec’s biggest cable company, had 210,600 clients, mostly in Quebec.

Among the newest entrants, Wind Mobile, subject to considerable controversy for its foreign financial backing, may one day be a much larger player in Canada’s wireless marketplace, but not today.  It had just 271,000 customers as of March 31st.

Even fewer customers rely on some of Canada’s regional providers, which include companies like Thunder Bay Telephone, Lynx Mobility (co-owned by an aboriginal partner with a mission to serve rural Canada), Calgary-based AirTel, which is popular with oil/gas workers for its “push to talk” service, and Ice Wireless, which is the largest GSM carrier in northern Canada, reaching 70% of the population of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Canada’s largest three providers also own or control several “competitors” that mostly sell prepaid service.  Customers thinking they are escaping the big boys often really are not:

  • Fido is owned by Rogers;
  • Virgin Mobile Canada is owned by Bell;
  • Koodo Mobile is owned by Telus

AT&T Wireless Customers: Get a $10,000 Arbitration Settlement and Stop A Bad Merger… Maybe

Phillip Dampier July 26, 2011 AT&T, Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, T-Mobile, Wireless Broadband Comments Off on AT&T Wireless Customers: Get a $10,000 Arbitration Settlement and Stop A Bad Merger… Maybe

Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

Telecom Companies Use Usage Caps/Distorted Marketing to Create ‘Confusopoly’ and Rake In the Proceeds

The $49 "cap" plan isn't your maximum monthly fee, it's the MINIMUM monthly fee. The company selling it was fined for misleading advertising.

Banking on the fact most consumers do not understand what a “gigabyte” represents, much less know how many they use per month on usage-capped broadband plans, large telecommunications companies enjoy a growth industry collecting enormous overlimit fees that bear no relation to their actual costs of delivering the service.

The social implications of “usage cap and tier” pricing are enormous, according to Australia’s Communications & Media Authority.  Australia remains one of the most usage-capped countries in the world, and broadband providers have taken full advantage of the situation to run what the ACMA calls a broadband Confusopoly.

As a growing number of mobile broadband customers in the United States and Canada approach the allowance limits on their mobile data plans, Australia’s long experience with Internet Overcharging foreshadows a North American future of widespread bill shock, $1000+ telecom bills, and families torn apart by finger-pointing and traded recriminations over “excessive use” of the Internet.

Not helping matters are providers themselves, some who distort and occasionally openly lie about their plans.  In Australia, Optus was fined $200,000 for advertising a “Max Cap $49” plan that led many to believe their maximum bill would amount to $49.  But not so fast.  Optus turned the meaning of the word “cap,” typically a usage limit, upside down to mean a capped minimum charge.  Indeed, the lowest bill an Optus customer could receive was $49.  Using data services cost extra.  The company also claimed customers could use accompanying call credits “to call anyone,” another fact not in evidence.

Another common marketing misconception is the “unlimited mobile broadband” plan — the one that actually comes with significant limits. In most cases, providers want “unlimited” to mean there are no overlimit fees — they simply throttle the speed of the service down to a dial-up-like experience once a customer exceeds a certain amount of usage.  Companies like Cricket disclose their usage triggers.  Others, like Clearwire, do not — and they are applied arbitrarily based on customer usage profiles and congestion at the transmission tower.  While annoying, at least these plans do not impose overlimit fees which lead to the growing problem of “bill shock.”

Bill Shock

North Americans getting enormous mobile data bills remains rare enough to warrant attention by the TV news.  Often the result of not understanding the implications of international roaming, customers can quickly run up thousands of dollars in mobile bills while touring Europe, cruising, or even just living along the Canadian-American border, where accidental roaming is a frequent problem.

But as Americans only now become acquainted with usage-capped mobile data plans with overlimit fees, bill shock may become much more common.

In Australia, which has had a head start with usage-capped mobile data, an incredible 58 percent of customers exceeded their usage allowances at least once in a calendar year, and this statistic comes from April 2009.  The bill shock problem has now become so pervasive in Australia, in 2010 the office of the Telecom Ombudsman received more than 167,955 consumer complaints about the practice.

In the United States, one in six have already experienced surprise data charges on their bills — that’s 30 million Americans.  The Federal Communications Commission found 84 percent of those overcharged said their cell phone carrier did not contact them when they were about to exceed their allowed service limits. In about one-in-four cases, the overlimit fee was greater than $100.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proposed legislation that would require a customer to consent to overlimit fees before extra charges accrue for voice, data, and text usage.

The Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2011 would also require carriers to send free text messages when a customer reaches 80 percent of their plan’s allowance.

“Sending an automatic text or email notification to a person’s phone is a simple, cost-effective solution that should not place a burden on cell phone companies and will go a long way toward reducing the pain of bill shock by customers,” said Udall, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. “As more and more cell phone companies drop their unlimited data plans, this problem only stands to get worse. I am proud to stand up for cell phone consumers and reintroduce this important legislation.”

In Australia and North America, legislation to warn consumers of impending overlimit fees has been vociferously fought by the telecommunications industry.

Udall

The CTIA-Wireless Association in Washington said such measures were completely unnecessary because consumers can already check their usage by logging into providers’ websites.  Even worse, they claim, bills like Udall’s threaten to destroy innovation and harm the industry by locking a single warning standard into place.  CTIA claims that wouldn’t help consumers.

But Australian regulators, who have years of experience dealing with unregulated carriers’ usage limit schemes say otherwise, noting industry efforts to self-regulate have been spectacular successes for the industry’s bottom line, just as much as they are a failure for consumers who end up footing the bill.

Even worse, unregulated providers taking liberties with marketing claims can have profound social implications when customers find they can’t pay the enormous charges that often result.

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence, a charity, reported one instance of an elderly client who received a $1,200 broadband bill he couldn’t pay outright.  Even as he negotiated a monthly payment plan with the provider, the company shut off his home phone line without warning.

“His telephone service was particularly important because he used a personal alarm call system, which entailed wearing a small electronic device that he could activate in the event of a medical emergency,” noted a report on the incident.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found a long-standing competitive feud by two large mobile providers in Australia — Telecom and Optus — has only brought more instances of marketing excesses that ultimately don’t benefit consumers.  The Commission increasingly finds it lacks the resources to keep up with the slew of questionable advertising.

Some industry critics suspect providers treat ACCC’s fines as simply a cost of doing business, and some like Optus have been rebuked more than once by the regulator for false advertising.

The ACMA says the longer government waits to protect citizens from provider abuses, the more consumers will be financially harmed, especially as data usage grows while usage caps traditionally do not.

Free Press’ Joel Kelsey Blows Telecom Talking Points Out of the Water on AT&T Merger

Gertraude Hofstätter-Weiß March 24, 2011 AT&T, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Public Policy & Gov't, T-Mobile, Video, Wireless Broadband Comments Off on Free Press’ Joel Kelsey Blows Telecom Talking Points Out of the Water on AT&T Merger

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Kelsey Sees Higher Wireless Rates After T-Mobile Deal 3-24-11.flv[/flv]

Getting the mainstream media to cover issues in the telecommunications sphere usually means wading into the “business news” sections of newspapers or watching business cable news channels.  Unfortunately, too often these outlets cater to the whims and preconceived notions of the audience — big business.  In the case of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, Wall Street loves the idea, but consumers do not.  Watch as Free Press’ Joel Kelsey handily deals with the gang at Bloomberg News, who are convinced mergers and acquisitions never result in price increases for consumers.  Has your cell phone bill gone up or down in the last three years?  (4 minutes)

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!