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."
Hide this

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


  1. icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mixed on this matter

    Well let's review your errant "red herring" statement in depth here, I'm sure the truth might cause you some discomfort but hey what do you expect from a buffoon?

    #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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.