They've just announced they're implementing
a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
a paper bill.
(About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
to give a detailed call listing and could get into
many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> They've just announced they're implementing
> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
> a paper bill.
>
> (About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
> to give a detailed call listing and could get into
> many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
.... But gave you the opportunity to stay "grandfathered"
to the old, full-listing format. I chose that option.
Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:06:28 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> They've just announced they're implementing
>> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
>> a paper bill.
>>
>> (About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
>> to give a detailed call listing and could get into
>> many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
>
>... But gave you the opportunity to stay "grandfathered"
>to the old, full-listing format. I chose that option.
>
>Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
>But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
>
>Cheers, -- tlvp
It's on their website: my.tmobile.com It's supposed to begin in
September. I signed up for the paperless billing just for that reason.
Also, I signed up for Message Blocking. It's a free service T-Mobile
offers. My plan charges for each text message I send or receive and
the Message Blocking is free.
"tlvp" <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote in message
newsp.uyz542kmo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> They've just announced they're implementing
>> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
>> a paper bill.
>>
>> (About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
>> to give a detailed call listing and could get into
>> many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
>
> ... But gave you the opportunity to stay "grandfathered"
> to the old, full-listing format. I chose that option.
>
> Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
> But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
I just got mine this week. The warnings of the new charge are are over it.
I asked if my grandfathered detailed billing would grandfather me without
the $1.50 charge, but they said no, so I threw in the towel and took the
paperless billing option.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:36:43 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:
>
> "tlvp" <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote in message
> newsp.uyz542kmo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They've just announced they're implementing
>>> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
>>> a paper bill.
>>>
>>> (About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
>>> to give a detailed call listing and could get into
>>> many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
>>
>> ... But gave you the opportunity to stay "grandfathered"
>> to the old, full-listing format. I chose that option.
>>
>> Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
>> But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
>
> I just got mine this week. The warnings of the new charge are are over it.
> I asked if my grandfathered detailed billing would grandfather me without
> the $1.50 charge, but they said no, so I threw in the towel and took the
> paperless billing option.
Does the paperless billing option require one to find one's bill
on the my.t-mobile.com web site? I (and many others, alas) find
that site -- in its present incarnation -- utterly unpredictable,
with pages randomly spewing out server-error messages instead of
loading correctly. This regardless of which browser (NN 7.0, IE6,
IE7, Opera 9.64, FF) I try it with.
And does it (even worse!) require *payment* through my.t-mobile?
I think it may be a buck-and-a-half well-spent if it spares me
fighting with my.t-mobile.com, and absorbing the paper/toner/
other_consumables costs of printing my own bill :-) .
Or will they *e-mail* me my (detailed) bill? If so, and if one
can at least still pay through the phone-based payments app at 611,
I may decide that paperless billing might not be all that bad.
TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> >> Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
> >> But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
> >
> > I just got mine this week. The warnings of the new charge are are over
it.
> > I asked if my grandfathered detailed billing would grandfather me
without
> > the $1.50 charge, but they said no, so I threw in the towel and took the
> > paperless billing option.
>
> Does the paperless billing option require one to find one's bill
> on the my.t-mobile.com web site? I (and many others, alas) find
> that site -- in its present incarnation -- utterly unpredictable,
> with pages randomly spewing out server-error messages instead of
> loading correctly. This regardless of which browser (NN 7.0, IE6,
> IE7, Opera 9.64, FF) I try it with.
>
> And does it (even worse!) require *payment* through my.t-mobile?
>
>
> I think it may be a buck-and-a-half well-spent if it spares me
> fighting with my.t-mobile.com, and absorbing the paper/toner/
> other_consumables costs of printing my own bill :-) .
>
> Or will they *e-mail* me my (detailed) bill? If so, and if one
> can at least still pay through the phone-based payments app at 611,
> I may decide that paperless billing might not be all that bad.
>
> TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
You have to print the bill off the site if you want a hard copy,
unfortunately, and I agree the site is presently a mess. You can still mail
them a check, but I prefer automatic payments personally.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:10:21 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@americaonline.com> wrote:
> At 21 Aug 2009 22:50:07 -0400 tlvp wrote:
>
>> >> Haven't yet seen any announcement of said new monthly charge.
>> >> But my latest bill is due any day now ... :-{ .
>> >
>> > I just got mine this week. The warnings of the new charge are are over
> it.
>> > I asked if my grandfathered detailed billing would grandfather me
> without
>> > the $1.50 charge, but they said no, so I threw in the towel and took the
>> > paperless billing option.
>>
>> Does the paperless billing option require one to find one's bill
>> on the my.t-mobile.com web site? I (and many others, alas) find
>> that site -- in its present incarnation -- utterly unpredictable,
>> with pages randomly spewing out server-error messages instead of
>> loading correctly. This regardless of which browser (NN 7.0, IE6,
>> IE7, Opera 9.64, FF) I try it with.
>>
>> And does it (even worse!) require *payment* through my.t-mobile?
>>
>>
>> I think it may be a buck-and-a-half well-spent if it spares me
>> fighting with my.t-mobile.com, and absorbing the paper/toner/
>> other_consumables costs of printing my own bill :-) .
>>
>> Or will they *e-mail* me my (detailed) bill? If so, and if one
>> can at least still pay through the phone-based payments app at 611,
>> I may decide that paperless billing might not be all that bad.
>>
>> TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
>
> You have to print the bill off the site if you want a hard copy,
> unfortunately, and I agree the site is presently a mess. You can still mail
> them a check, but I prefer automatic payments personally.
Noted, Todd; thanks. I still "think it may be a buck-and-a-half well-spent if ..."
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> They've just announced they're implementing
> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
> a paper bill.
Just wait a few more years and they will charge us for the "convenience"
of getting online bills. That's how banks justify charging ATM fees now
even though at its introduction in the '70s they were justifying it with
being able to operate with fewer human tellers, thus saving money.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
wrote:
>They've just announced they're implementing a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving a paper bill.
>
The good part of all this is that every customer can now cancel their
service without a early termination fee.
So buy a new G1 or mytouch phone and when they notify you of the
increase cancel - and I would do it in writing, certified, and quote
the paragraph above, and take the phone at the discount.
It's just their cost to make this change. All cellular companies have
that clause. Verizon and ATT recently had smart people exercising
their rights. Now it's tmobile's turn.
Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
> wrote:
>> They've just announced they're implementing a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving a paper bill.
>>
> The good part of all this is that every customer can now cancel their
> service without a early termination fee.
>
> So buy a new G1 or mytouch phone and when they notify you of the
> increase cancel - and I would do it in writing, certified, and quote
> the paragraph above, and take the phone at the discount.
They've probably already added this clause to new contracts, so it's too
late.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:36:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>
>They've probably already added this clause to new contracts, so it's too
>late.
I read the contract on their site today. Not there afaict.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> They've just announced they're implementing
> a charge of $1.50/month to continue receiving
> a paper bill.
>
> (About a year ago they changed the bill format. It used
> to give a detailed call listing and could get into
> many, many, pages. They replaced that with a summary).
Back when they indicated they would abbreviate the bill
format, I protested (as they suggested one could do),
declaring I wished to *retain* the detailed call/SMS
listings, at no additional charge, as thitherto.
When today's T-Mo bill arrived, complete with Paper Billing
Surcharge insert, I immediately phoned 611 to voice my
displeasure in a "suggestion" to those higher in command
that "no business can afford to offend its customers by
charging for normal billing services."
The agent who reported she would pass my opinion along
acted as though I were *not* the first complainant, but
rather just the latest of many, and that the higher-ups
might well change their tune, were there enough pushback.
So I'd encourage others offended by this impending new
Paper Billing Surcharge to voice their displeasure as well.
Just dial 611, and say "Representative" ... .
Who knows what a loud enough, persistent enough chorus
of such complaints might accomplish?
[Not that I'm holding my breath, of course, but ... .]
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
In <op.uzabt4kuo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> writes:
>Who knows what a loud enough, persistent enough chorus
>of such complaints might accomplish?
paging Arlo Guthrie.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fj6895hmoso1kc303d598d407iqrao6bj9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:40 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
> wrote:
>>They've just announced they're implementing a charge of $1.50/month to
>>continue receiving a paper bill.
>>
> The good part of all this is that every customer can now cancel their
> service without a early termination fee.
>
> So buy a new G1 or mytouch phone and when they notify you of the
> increase cancel - and I would do it in writing, certified, and quote
> the paragraph above, and take the phone at the discount.
>
> It's just their cost to make this change. All cellular companies have
> that clause. Verizon and ATT recently had smart people exercising
> their rights. Now it's tmobile's turn.
Good luck with that. According to the posts at Howardforums.com (a cell
phone users forum) those that attempted to wriggle out using this were
simply promised $1.50/month credits on their bill to offset the charge for
the remainder of their contract.
> Charging someone to receive a paper bill is bush league. If the
> difference in profitability for a company is $1.50 per customer, then
> they've got a bad business model.
It probably does cost them close to $1 more to send a paper bill than an
e-bill. If they can get all their customers to give up paper bills and
not get much extra churn from this policy, and if it does not cause much
of a loss in new subscribers, then it makes financial sense to do it.
It's not profitability versus operating at a loss, it's an additional
$360 million a year in pure profit.
"Cyrus Afzali" <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:donn951lh2m007ig7f5hsnipaq14ef9c26@4ax.com...
> You get charged ATM fees at "foreign" machines because your bank has
> to pay a per-transaction fee to the ATM's network operator, whether
> that is Cirrus, Plus, or any of the other majors. That may be
> annoying, but at least it's somewhat justified.
I know that but I'd be willing to bet that before long they will also
start charging ATM transaction fees for their own customers as well.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4a9c0734$0$1620$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> It probably does cost them close to $1 more to send a paper bill than
> an e-bill. If they can get all their customers to give up paper bills
> and not get much extra churn from this policy, and if it does not
> cause much of a loss in new subscribers, then it makes financial sense
> to do it. It's not profitability versus operating at a loss, it's an
> additional $360 million a year in pure profit.
That brings up something I've been wondering lately. A couple years ago
my county government allowed payment of the semi-annual property taxes
on-line, but they charge a nominal fee for it even though that must save
them instead of cost them money. I can think of only one reason why they
do it, but I want to hear your opinion about it first.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:20:13 -0400, P J <pj@pjama.invalid> wrote:
> ... [snip] ... A couple years ago
> my county government allowed payment of the semi-annual property taxes
> on-line, but they charge a nominal fee for it even though that must save
> them instead of cost them money. I can think of only one reason why they
> do it, but I want to hear your opinion about it first.
My local government never did get around to online payments for that,
but *did* formerly accept credit cards, in person, for those payments
(as well as cash or checks).
For some years now, though, credit card payments direct to the local
tax collector's office have been made taboo: only cash or checks are
accepted, though they *will* allow the "official" government-payment
credit card operators to submit payment on your behalf.
Of course, those are sleazy operators, who take a tithe of some 3%
(or more) of the payment for their services, and I'll be darned if
I'm going to give them $150 every half year for my semiannual $5000
in property taxes.
No clear rationale why the tax collector ever stopped accepting
credit cards, though (unless perhaps they enjoy a little juice
off of the 3% the "official" government-payment credit card operators
collect :-) ).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
As they sneak another rate increase in... 
p.uyz542kmo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net.. .
Linear Mode
