I noticed my bill had gone up by a small amount, but I had not received
any notice of a billing change, so I contacted Customer Care. I was
informed that Fees had gone up, and that T-Mobile reserved the right to
increase Fees WITHOUT NOTICE, so I couldn't count on being notified in
advance of any changes.
In other words, T-Mobile feels free to charge whatever it wants, and if
you have automatic payment (not so "EasyPay"), you will get stuck with
the charges if you don't notice your bill has changed.
Even if legal, it's poor customer policy IMHO, although other major
carriers may well be no better.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
>any notice of a billing change, so I contacted Customer Care. I
was >informed that Fees had gone up, and that T-Mobile reserved the
right to >increase Fees WITHOUT NOTICE, so I couldn't count on being
notified in >advance of any changes. > >In other words, T-Mobile
feels free to charge whatever it wants, and if >you have automatic
payment (not so "EasyPay"), you will get stuck with >the charges
if you don't notice your bill has changed.
There is a good chance you will get stuck with the charges even if
you do notice that they've gone up, unless you want to go the route
of having the account shut off for non-payment. What charges on
your bill went up? Who determines that charge, T-Mobile or
governments?
If you use EasyPay or similar payment setups where the merchant
sets the amount of the bill and you pay it before you see it
(especially with a checking account or debit card, vs. a credit
card), you've set yourself up for trouble. The worst trouble isn't
a couple of dollars for fees, the worst trouble is the 120-pound
(that's weight, not currency) paper phone bill with a huge bunch
of fraudulent or mis-billed calls charged to your number. If you've
authorized payment, you may have trouble getting your money back
quickly (YOU must have made all those 900 number calls, even if it
was 10 simultaneous calls from the same line), and meanwhile you
have trouble paying your other bills because your account is nearly
empty.
>Even if legal, it's poor customer policy IMHO, although other major
>carriers may well be no better.
For some of those fees (the ones set by governments), *T-Mobile*
may not have gotten advance notice. On my bill, most of what went
up was "State & Local Sales Tax", which was broken out into 3
categories for the previous bill.
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:21:22 -0500, in
<zOydnUir3siv6OHRnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>, gordonb.sfp08@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:39:40 -0700, in
><grfo7619ubhq0l1q8itfom27k69ie14c7u@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>I noticed my bill had gone up by a small amount, but I had not received
>>any notice of a billing change, so I contacted Customer Care. I was
>>informed that Fees had gone up, and that T-Mobile reserved the right to
>>increase Fees WITHOUT NOTICE, so I couldn't count on being notified in
>>advance of any changes.
Please use a newsreader that quotes properly -- it was a hassle to clean
up the mess. Thanks.
>There is a good chance you will get stuck with the charges even if
>you do notice that they've gone up, unless you want to go the route
>of having the account shut off for non-payment.
You have at least these options:
1. Objecting to the increase without notice,
which should get you a credit of any fees prior to notice.
2. Insisting on prior notice before any future increases.
3. Terminating service without penalty.
>What charges on
>your bill went up?
Regulatory Programs Fee*
*Fee we collect and retain to help cover our costs related to funding
and complying with government mandates, programs and obligations.
Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Surcharge
>Who determines that charge, T-Mobile or
>governments?
T-Mobile.
>If you use EasyPay or similar payment setups where the merchant
>sets the amount of the bill and you pay it before you see it
>(especially with a checking account or debit card, vs. a credit
>card), you've set yourself up for trouble.
That's not how EasyPay and most (lawful) automatic payment systems work.
You are supposed to get an advance bill notice, but a problem can arise
if:
1. The bill notice doesn't actually get sent out.
2. The bill notice gets lost in transit.
3. You aren't able to see the bill notice (e.g., traveling).
4. You fail to scrutinize the bill notice,
assuming it will just be the same as prior bills.
>The worst trouble isn't
>a couple of dollars for fees, the worst trouble is the 120-pound
>(that's weight, not currency) paper phone bill with a huge bunch
>of fraudulent or mis-billed calls charged to your number.
Or a mistake in the billing system. I was once overcharged several
thousand dollars by AT&T Mobility when an employee mistakenly changed
options on my account (with no involvement by me).
>If you've
>authorized payment, you may have trouble getting your money back
>quickly (YOU must have made all those 900 number calls, even if it
>was 10 simultaneous calls from the same line), and meanwhile you
>have trouble paying your other bills because your account is nearly
>empty.
In my case I was advised there was "no way to stop the charges" (!), and
that I should cancel my card, which I was unwilling to do. To resolve
it took calls to my bank to block payments to AT&T Mobility, to top
executives of AT&T Mobility to get the mess promptly straightened out,
and then to my back again to remove the block.
>>Even if legal, it's poor customer policy IMHO, although other major
>>carriers may well be no better.
>
>For some of those fees (the ones set by governments), *T-Mobile*
>may not have gotten advance notice. On my bill, most of what went
>up was "State & Local Sales Tax", which was broken ou into 3
>categories for the previous bill.
T-Mobile _always_ gets advance notice of taxes. As for fees, they are a
cost of doing business, and it's sleazy for carriers to tack fees onto
bills so they can low-ball (lie about) the monthly rate. Think
restaurant trying to tack on to your check a host of line items like
"Board of Health Examination Fee", "Business License Fee", etc. These
"fees" add almost 10% to the cost of my service over and above taxes.
>>There is a good chance you will get stuck with the charges even if
>>you do notice that they've gone up, unless you want to go the route
>>of having the account shut off for non-payment.
>
>You have at least these options:
>1. Objecting to the increase without notice,
> which should get you a credit of any fees prior to notice.
In the case of fees tied up with the government, I doubt you'll
be able to get any refund on the fees. You might manage to get
everything BUT that refunded.
>2. Insisting on prior notice before any future increases.
I suspect if the (phone) company is being honest, they'll offer you
#3 because they aren't capable of doing #2. Otherwise they'll just
lie about it. I'm sure they don't want to spend postage notifying
customers about a $0.02 increase in the USF fee (which is about
how much the last one was).
>3. Terminating service without penalty.
>>If you use EasyPay or similar payment setups where the merchant
>>sets the amount of the bill and you pay it before you see it
>>(especially with a checking account or debit card, vs. a credit
>>card), you've set yourself up for trouble.
>
>That's not how EasyPay and most (lawful) automatic payment systems work.
Yes, it is. The payment is *NOT* held up until you have a chance
to see it and approve it. The payment should be held up until you
have a chance to approve it: if not, you're asking for trouble.
Among other things, you want your service cancelled, for non-payment
if necessary, after you are dead. Some widows have had problems
getting cell phone accounts cancelled without ETF or cancelled at
all when their spouse died. Someone (presumably single) with
extensive setup of automatic bill pay and automatic deposit of his
pension to his account can and has gone for over 5 years without
anyone noticing he was dead in his bed.
>You are supposed to get an advance bill notice, but a problem can arise
>if:
>1. The bill notice doesn't actually get sent out.
>2. The bill notice gets lost in transit.
>3. You aren't able to see the bill notice (e.g., traveling).
>4. You fail to scrutinize the bill notice,
> assuming it will just be the same as prior bills.
Which is exactly why you should set it up so you have to approve
the payment, with the amount sitting in front of you, before it
goes out. It does require a little bit of discipline to leave a
reminder on your calendar/PDA/phone to check on the bill each month
in case of #1 or #2 above. Yes, a couple of times I've called
demanding a bill. If a company has a decent web site I can find
it there. And you have to keep track of possible shifts in billing
cycles.
It's preferable to not even give the payment info to the merchant.
Give it to your bank. That way YOU initiate the payment, and know
what it is when you do. (Many banks let you schedule payments, so
you can estimate one or several and schedule it/them to go off in
the middle of that long vacation. They also tend to have the *last*
amount you paid available so you can at least see if the total
changed before you pay it.) The merchant then can't take your money
without permission. Some people find this out when they try to
cancel their account and the company ignores them, and keeps billing
anyway. Gyms and AOL were famous for this. Legal or not, it's a
big hassle to get it corrected. Some have had to change banks.
Not get a new account, change banks.
I'm not willing to assume that if it's illegal, the merchant won't
do it anyway. Besides, they'll claim it was "just a mistake" if
law enforcement seriously gets involved. Even if it *was* just
a billing software goofup on their part, it doesn't make it less
painful on your part.
If it's not clear yet, I don't like "pull" payments (The merchant
tells you bank to pay it, and the bank does.) I like "push" payments:
*YOU* tell the bank to pay it, and the bank does. You go to the
bank's web site, not the web site of the merchant. In between are
one-shot "pull" payments where you enter the amount to pay each
time at the merchant's web site. The merchant can still mis-use
that info, like "correcting" the amount you paid to the full
amount of the bill, or automatically charging a payment (and late
fee) when you didn't pay a later bill.
>>The worst trouble isn't
>>a couple of dollars for fees, the worst trouble is the 120-pound
>>(that's weight, not currency) paper phone bill with a huge bunch
>>of fraudulent or mis-billed calls charged to your number.
>
>Or a mistake in the billing system. I was once overcharged several
>thousand dollars by AT&T Mobility when an employee mistakenly changed
>options on my account (with no involvement by me).
The 120-pound bill will probably overcharge you by a lot more than
several thousand dollars. More like several thousand per pound.
Yep. There's also the "42 million dollar problem" where an unsigned
32-bit number went negative and you get billed something slightly
less than 2**32 cents (about 42.949 million dollars) for what was
supposed to be a few cents credit.
>>If you've
>>authorized payment, you may have trouble getting your money back
>>quickly (YOU must have made all those 900 number calls, even if it
>>was 10 simultaneous calls from the same line), and meanwhile you
>>have trouble paying your other bills because your account is nearly
>>empty.
>
>In my case I was advised there was "no way to stop the charges" (!), and
>that I should cancel my card, which I was unwilling to do. To resolve
>it took calls to my bank to block payments to AT&T Mobility, to top
>executives of AT&T Mobility to get the mess promptly straightened out,
>and then to my back again to remove the block.
>
>>>Even if legal, it's poor customer policy IMHO, although other major
>>>carriers may well be no better.
>>
>>For some of those fees (the ones set by governments), *T-Mobile*
>>may not have gotten advance notice. On my bill, most of what went
>>up was "State & Local Sales Tax", which was broken ou into 3
>>categories for the previous bill.
>
>T-Mobile _always_ gets advance notice of taxes. As for fees, they are a
>cost of doing business, and it's sleazy for carriers to tack fees onto
>bills so they can low-ball (lie about) the monthly rate. Think
On the phone bills, I think they may legally have to break out the
fees on the bill. I'll agree it's dishonest, but it also means
that it might take a half hour (or a half day) to explain their
prices on a national television ad because there are so many different
rates and taxes. The same goes for restaurants advertising prices
of food without including tips (but expecting tips).
>restaurant trying to tack on to your check a host of line items like
>"Board of Health Examination Fee", "Business License Fee", etc. These
>"fees" add almost 10% to the cost of my service over and above taxes.
When looking at phone company quotes, I usually figure that whatever
I am quoted, add 50% for fees and taxes.
I heard one restaurant tried to tack on a charge for employees
washing their hands, and the customer screamed fraud and demanded
a video of them actually doing it. It turned out the water had
been turned off for an hour for maintenance, and no one in the
restaraunt had noticed.
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:17:23 -0500, in
<P6Sdnfi3PNtucuDRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>, gordonb.2vflx@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>>1. Objecting to the increase without notice,
>> which should get you a credit of any fees prior to notice.
>
>In the case of fees tied up with the government, I doubt you'll
>be able to get any refund on the fees. You might manage to get
>everything BUT that refunded.
a) They are not tied up with the government.
b) I was offered a credit, routine on a customer issue.
>>2. Insisting on prior notice before any future increases.
>
>I suspect if the (phone) company is being honest, they'll offer you
>#3 because they aren't capable of doing #2. Otherwise they'll just
>lie about it. I'm sure they don't want to spend postage notifying
>customers about a $0.02 increase in the USF fee (which is about
>how much the last one was).
They are unquestionably capable of doing it -- all that's needed is a
proper notice in a prior bill.
>>>If you use EasyPay or similar payment setups where the merchant
>>>sets the amount of the bill and you pay it before you see it
>>>(especially with a checking account or debit card, vs. a credit
>>>card), you've set yourself up for trouble.
>>
>>That's not how EasyPay and most (lawful) automatic payment systems work.
>
>Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
You said "you pay it before you see it" and that's just not the case
>>T-Mobile _always_ gets advance notice of taxes. As for fees, they are a
>>cost of doing business, and it's sleazy for carriers to tack fees onto
>>bills so they can low-ball (lie about) the monthly rate. Think
>
>On the phone bills, I think they may legally have to break out the
>fees on the bill.
Not in detail.
>When looking at phone company quotes, I usually figure that whatever
>I am quoted, add 50% for fees and taxes.
I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
15% after the increase.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
>>>1. Objecting to the increase without notice,
>>> which should get you a credit of any fees prior to notice.
>>
>>In the case of fees tied up with the government, I doubt you'll
>>be able to get any refund on the fees. You might manage to get
>>everything BUT that refunded.
>
>a) They are not tied up with the government.
A fee described as recovering costs of government regulation
is tied up with the government, and there's a law allowing them
to recover those costs.
>b) I was offered a credit, routine on a customer issue.
>
>>>2. Insisting on prior notice before any future increases.
>>
>>I suspect if the (phone) company is being honest, they'll offer you
>>#3 because they aren't capable of doing #2. Otherwise they'll just
>>lie about it. I'm sure they don't want to spend postage notifying
>>customers about a $0.02 increase in the USF fee (which is about
>>how much the last one was).
>
>They are unquestionably capable of doing it -- all that's needed is a
>proper notice in a prior bill.
>>>>If you use EasyPay or similar payment setups where the merchant
>>>>sets the amount of the bill and you pay it before you see it
>>>>(especially with a checking account or debit card, vs. a credit
>>>>card), you've set yourself up for trouble.
>>>That's not how EasyPay and most (lawful) automatic payment systems work.
>>Yes, it is.
>
>No, it's not.
>You said "you pay it before you see it" and that's just not the case
If it's possible that "you pay it before you see it", it's an
unacceptable (to me) method of payment. With Easypay, if you are
on a long vacation (or hospital stay, or just forget to look at the
bill), you pay it before you see it. What I want is "you don't pay
it until you've seen it".
>>When looking at phone company quotes, I usually figure that whatever
>>I am quoted, add 50% for fees and taxes.
>
>I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
>switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
>15% after the increase.
I've seen that on *every* phone (wireless or landline) company I've
ever dealt with. They also won't let you know how much it is really
going to cost until the second bill (the first bill is usually
loaded with one-time fees and taxes on them, which distorts the
numbers). I spent a couple of hours trying to get that info out
of T-Mobile before I signed up.
What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
that's what I've got now.
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:11:30 -0500, in
<beOdneiTWux_iOLRnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>, gordonb.i1f33@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>>a) They are not tied up with the government.
>
>A fee described as recovering costs of government regulation
>is tied up with the government, and there's a law allowing them
>to recover those costs.
What law (specific title and/or code section)?
>>I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
>>switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
>>15% after the increase.
>What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
>that's what I've got now.
T-Mobile is 15%, not 50%.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
In article <2qbu76puedainsh68bhn506ldgic2d2ojs@4ax.com>, spamfilter1
@navasgroup.com says...
> >>a) They are not tied up with the government.
> >
> >A fee described as recovering costs of government regulation
> >is tied up with the government, and there's a law allowing them
> >to recover those costs.
>
> What law (specific title and/or code section)?
>
> >>I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
> >>switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
> >>15% after the increase.
>
> >What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
> >that's what I've got now.
>
> T-Mobile is 15%, not 50%.
NO ONE is 50%.
Not T-Mo, not Sprint, not Verizon. I've used all three. I've never used
AT&T but I doubt they're 50% either, they need to compete with everyone
else.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:15:32 -0700, in
<MPG.26e9cff3fa48f56989a0b@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>In article <2qbu76puedainsh68bhn506ldgic2d2ojs@4ax.com>, spamfilter1
>@navasgroup.com says...
>
>> >>a) They are not tied up with the government.
>> >
>> >A fee described as recovering costs of government regulation
>> >is tied up with the government, and there's a law allowing them
>> >to recover those costs.
>>
>> What law (specific title and/or code section)?
>>
>> >>I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
>> >>switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
>> >>15% after the increase.
>>
>> >What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
>> >that's what I've got now.
>>
>> T-Mobile is 15%, not 50%.
>
>NO ONE is 50%.
>
>Not T-Mo, not Sprint, not Verizon. I've used all three. I've never used
>AT&T but I doubt they're 50% either, they need to compete with everyone
>else.
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:17:23 -0500, in
<P6Sdnfi3PNtucuDRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>, gordonb.2vflx@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>When looking at phone company quotes, I usually figure that whatever
>I am quoted, add 50% for fees and taxes.
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:11:30 -0500, in
<beOdneiTWux_iOLRnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>, gordonb.i1f33@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
>that's what I've got now.
In article <1ac086l9l9kjgcff2uqvsik6glt8rhse2k@4ax.com>, spamfilter1
@navasgroup.com says...
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:15:32 -0700, in
> <MPG.26e9cff3fa48f56989a0b@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <2qbu76puedainsh68bhn506ldgic2d2ojs@4ax.com>, spamfilter1
> >@navasgroup.com says...
> >
> >> >>a) They are not tied up with the government.
> >> >
> >> >A fee described as recovering costs of government regulation
> >> >is tied up with the government, and there's a law allowing them
> >> >to recover those costs.
> >>
> >> What law (specific title and/or code section)?
> >>
> >> >>I would never put up with anything like that. You should think about
> >> >>switching carriers. My total taxes, fees and other charges are about
> >> >>15% after the increase.
> >>
> >> >What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
> >> >that's what I've got now.
> >>
> >> T-Mobile is 15%, not 50%.
> >
> >NO ONE is 50%.
> >
> >Not T-Mo, not Sprint, not Verizon. I've used all three. I've never used
> >AT&T but I doubt they're 50% either, they need to compete with everyone
> >else.
>
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:17:23 -0500, in
> <P6Sdnfi3PNtucuDRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>,
> gordonb.2vflx@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >When looking at phone company quotes, I usually figure that whatever
> >I am quoted, add 50% for fees and taxes.
>
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:11:30 -0500, in
> <beOdneiTWux_iOLRnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.interneta merica>,
> gordonb.i1f33@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >What carrier would you suggest I switch to? Don't suggest T-Mobile,
> >that's what I've got now.
Far be it from me to say that Gordon's full of crap...
In article <Xns9DE8A1566A712xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com says...
>
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> > Ahhh, hell, I'll say it. Gordon's full of crap.
>
> Maybe not, my last bill was:
>
> EvenMore 500 = $29.99
> BIS = $25.00
> Sub Total = $54.99
> Taxes, fees = $06.32
> Total bill = $61.31
>
> As you can see the taxes/fees/etc. is 11.5% of $54.99 so Gordon just
> made a teensy arithmetic error, right? <G>
Y'know, I share an account with the wife and oldest daughter. Three
lines on a family share plan. Our bill would be a LOT more expensive if
taxes and fees accounted for 50% of the bill.
>> Ahhh, hell, I'll say it. Gordon's full of crap.
The assumption that <carrier> charges X% of your bill as taxes
and fees independent of your plan appears to be full of crap.
Others were making that assumption and I went along with it.
My T-Mobile with Motorola phone and 2-year contract for a pretty
barebones plan was 40.2%
My T-Mobile with bring-your-own Blackberry with more minutes, text,
and data plans comes to 15.4%
My AT&T landline came to 59.6%. So, allowing 50% for taxes and
fees isn't actually enough, although if you are limiting this
discussion to wireless, it might be.
Incidentally, none of the bills used in these calculations had any
extra charges for usage (long distance calls, texts, minute overages,
data, etc.)
>Maybe not, my last bill was:
>
>EvenMore 500 = $29.99
>BIS = $25.00
>Sub Total = $54.99
>Taxes, fees = $06.32
>Total bill = $61.31
>
>As you can see the taxes/fees/etc. is 11.5% of $54.99 so Gordon just
>made a teensy arithmetic error, right? <G>
Check your bill! 
Linear Mode
