Shop Talk
Price for 'premium' text messages? $10,000
From:
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/10/sean-clark-pays.html »
Sean Clark pays extra each month for his cell phone service so his daughter Amanda can enjoy unlimited, no-charge text messaging. So the Bothell, Wash. man was stunned when his Sprint bill for September showed with nearly $10,000 in text message charges.
"When I opened the bill, it was just pure shock," he said. "There were pages and pages and pages of things on there."
He called Sprint immediately looking for an explanation. Clark knew ringtones and Web-based downloads could get expensive, so he had turned off Web access from Amanda's phone. He al...
(continues)
The proof is there. Unless the father can prove complete incompetence on the part of his daughter, they should be responsible. If she IS completely incompetent, she shouldn't have a phone OR it should only be for calling (like one of the kid-oriented phones where even the numbers can be controlled).
I'm not saying I like premium services. I think they are the dirtiest players in the game. I think they need to be regulated. Until they are, SHE subscribed to the service.
Unfortunately, most people don't actuall...
(continues)
-Then add cell carrier who doesnt educate you with the 10000% of possible charges. Is it possible? 🤣
-Add some half naked magazine top model guys (inside the room with the girl)
😉 -Tiny letters explaining charge
🤠-etc... etc... etc...
Mix It up and tadaaaaaa!!!
you'll get a tasty $10,000 bill 😈
Warning: Do not cook unless you earn more than $3.000 monthly
chainsaw said:
Maybe he should allow his daughter to date...I mean she is 18 after all.
18 and developmentally disabled makes dating a tricky thing, I imagine. 😛
Either way, we don't bill this crap. The premium txt services do. It's basically the equivalent of texting a 1-900 number. Even the retarded understand 1-900 numbers incur rediculous charges... well, I've never worked in landline, so I'm sure they have a forum somewhere bitching about customers who don't understand that...
Either way. Valid charges. No refund. Very simple.
I hate it when parents say "MY SHES ONLY 14! I DIDNT AUTHORIZE THESE CHARGES!!" That's exactly why we don't sell ...
(continues)
And if you've ever read the fine print on those premium text ads it's pretty funny. "You must have bill payers permission to use this service." Yea right like some teenager is going to read the fine print, much less ask mommy or d...
(continues)
yodude said:...
When I was a CSR for VZW, I would flat out tell them if they wanted a credit they needed to call the company that was charging them. They are 3rd party, they bill us, we bill you, start from the top to get your money back. I would offer what I could, the CS number for the company, how to stop any more charges from coming, offer to block premium texts, but no credits. And yea, they tried to argue and say "But it showed up on the bill YOUR company sent me." And? That doesn't mean OUR company is the one responsible.
And if you've ever read the fine print on those premium text ads it's pretty funny. "You must have bill payers permission to use this service." Yea right like some teenager is going to read the fin
(continues)
Webb said:...yodude said:
When I was a CSR for VZW, I would flat out tell them if they wanted a credit they needed to call the company that was charging them. They are 3rd party, they bill us, we bill you, start from the top to get your money back. I would offer what I could, the CS number for the company, how to stop any more charges from coming, offer to block premium texts, but no credits. And yea, they tried to argue and say "But it showed up on the bill YOUR company sent me." And? That doesn't mean OUR company is the one responsible.
And if you've ever read the fine print on those premium text ads it's pretty funny. "You must have bill payers permission to use this service." Yea right like some te
(continues)
yodude said:
Life isn't fair. Read the fine print.
...and get a provider who exercises some modicum of control over third party billing.
I realise it's not the rep's fault. In your case, you aren't given much by way of empowerment, it seems, and no means to do a proper reversal of the charge (ie to keep the payment from going through to the third party merchant).
Not that the example you gave is one that SHOULD be reversed. The ones for 'Deal or No Deal' are at a seldom tread extreme end of the spectrum... namely the honest end, and the customer REALLY has to send that message to get that charge. But when we're looking at subscription charges... well, it's far more often that I'll deal with a case ...
(continues)
Life isn't fair. Read the fine print.
SEX WITH ANGELINA JOLIE!!!!
*with spouses permission, risk of std may occur
But I have to say that was AWFULLY decent of them to give him half off that bill. Would be better if they could find a way to block or limit those premium messaging charges but I am deeply impressed that they were willing to work with this customer in question. If I were in his shoes that would have made me ridiculously loyal to sprint and I would be sure to tell my friends and family how they comped 5k on my bill.
I am also pretty impressed with the Verizon policy.
Nikoletta said:
If I were in his shoes that would have made me ridiculously loyal to sprint and I would be sure to tell my friends and family how they comped 5k on my bill.
Your perspective on the situation is rather rare though. It's fair to assume that most customers out there won't share this outlook. Doesn't seem like this fellow will be heaping praise on Sprint either.
Can't say I'd really blame him for being irritated either.
Guy Montag said:
But sprint lost the income from how many customers by paying 5k out to these other companies. They may have been able to reduce the cost with the third party service providers but they still won't make a penny off this guy for the next ten years, assuming he stays with them.
More, considering that it's pretty much a given that this fellow won't be a customer with them and they probably won't actually collect any portion of the 10K.
kapwww said:
I disagree with the notion that there is no proof. The company can prove that messages were sent to the appropriate short code at the time and date that the hell-spawn premium text company claims the service was subscribed to. Also, I will point out that it doesn't matter who uses the phone. The person who puts the phone in their name is responsible for anything that happens on that phone. If a parent is dumb enough to hand a phone to a young kid without appropriate restrictions, it's not the fault of the cell phone provider and nobody will be attacking the kid's credit. It will be the responsibility of the parent and their credit.
At this point the parent is probably better off taking th...
(continues)
On the AT&T end of things, we have specialised tools to reverse charges of this sort. If we request the refund through them, it's the 3rd Party Content provider that's not getting paid. And I shed not a tear for them.
As such, I tend to take customers at their word for it on these charges, more often than not. For all that can be said about 'making the parent responsible for it', reasonably speaking the vast majority of parents are NOT going to know about these borderline con artists (iffy on the borderline, sometimes) un...
(continues)
The problem is that parents aren't raising their children to have any consequences for their actions. Kids think they can do anything they want because parents all it to be the case.
kapwww said:...
Would you give your kid a car without making them take driver's ed or get a license? How about give them an ATV or motorcycle without a helmet or any training? A bit extreme? OK. How about giving them a debit card for your bank account and not giving them any rules. Just drop them off at the mall but don't tell them anything about the card. Many kids will go nuts buying everything. Others with a bit of sense might realize that if they spend it all they will likely get in trouble and will also have nothing left.
The problem is that parents aren't raising their children to have any consequences for their actions. Kids think they can do anything they want because parents all it to be the case.
(continues)
Guy Montag said:
How do you put a purchase-blocker on an AT&T account?
Either call customer care and request it be added (unfortunately not every rep seems to know how), or you can go into MediaNet. It's either on the main page or under 'my account' - a section called 'Parental Controls' (silly, since this is useful for rather more than just reigning in the behaviour of offspring). One of the options in parental controls is purchase blocker. This, of course, assumes that you don't have wireless internet blocked on your phone.
(continues)
ihateeverything said:
That's all a premium text message is?
It's one example. Note that the carrier gets to keep about 30-40% of what's charged for this 'content'.
mottelerj said:
i totally feel that good for sprint! they are not the ones who are billing the ppl, that 3rd party company is. so sprint is going togive those ppl $10,000 and sprint is giving the customer $5,000 so sprint is out that $$$$! i totally feel for the cust, but i dont feel they hsould hold it against sprint for not crediting the rest.
Actually... the carrier gets between 30-40 percent of 3rd party content DirectBill transactions. It's not like they allow these content providers to bill their customers out of the goodness of their heart. The carriers entered into these arrangements with 3rd party content providers to get MONEY.
Why on earth would they do something like this for free? Oh. Wai...
(continues)
besides, the customer gave the phone to his daughter, its just like if he gives her a car, if she wrecks it he ahs to pay for the penalties. if she runs up charges. he ahs to pay for the penalties
http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/09/m-qube-verizon-wire ... »
I find it hard to believe that my carrier is the only one out there that has the power to simply cancel a third party purchase. If they can't, I have no sympathy for Sprint for being careless in giving blatantly predatory 'merchants' free reign over their billing system. That ranks as a little more stupid in my books than this guy giving his daughter a cell phone with an unlimited text package and blocked internet access.
kapwww said:
Then, by your own numbers, sprint is still giving as much as $1000 out of their own pockets. IF they made 40% of that $10000, that only adds up to $4000. As much as I hear horror stories of Sprint CS, that's still a mighty fine gesture...
A 'fine gesture' that still leaves a bad taste in the customer's mouth. They'll lose the customer, and if he's smart, he won't pay Sprint a dime for this. As I've said in other posts, this is what they get for allowing unrestricted access to the third party merchant, for neither having a means to adequately interdict such services, and having no means to reverse it.
So, yes. They look like cataclysmic idiots and/or sociopaths, but at least they're "nice"...
(continues)
(continues)
foxiangel5 said:
not near as bad of course. i have been getting these text messages lately with offers for ringtones and stuff. and i just delete them. well i just got my bill and that was a mistake. apparently if you dont respond with "no" or whatever the legit response is they automatically sign you up. i had over $50 in subscribtion fees for my phone and my sister who said she was receiving the same thing. thank god att credited it back for me!!
And you WORK or have worked in the industry, right? Any idea what triggered these things to start in your case?
Webb said:
And you WORK or have worked in the industry, right? Any idea what triggered these things to start in your case?
Based on a co-workers prior experience, it is not required that you sign up for the service. Some premium text companies only require that the number in use signed up for services at some time or another and will continue to bill the number until the subscription is cancelled.
Guy Montag said:Webb said:
And you WORK or have worked in the industry, right? Any idea what triggered these things to start in your case?
Based on a co-workers prior experience, it is not required that you sign up for the service. Some premium text companies only require that the number in use signed up for services at some time or another and will continue to bill the number until the subscription is cancelled.
Yes. In my experience they'll even keep billing that same number AFTER the service is cancelled. We've had more than a few cases where a customer starts up service and finds that they're getting directbilled subscription charges right from the start. And lo an...
(continues)
I wish service providers would offer a premium service block. Unfortunately these third party companies do not even require that you sign up for the service. If your number while possessed by a prior customer subscribed to the services and had his phone line cancelled then they will begin sending them to you once service is reactivated.
I do not think that companies should be required to monitor every bit of activity on a cell phone account. I am no technician but I would imagine the cost of s...
(continues)
Guy Montag said:
I wish service providers would offer a premium service block.
Some do. Others apparently go by the law of the jungle.
I ported my number out a week later because spit blows like a whale (or a 14th street hooker).
deepc185 said:
some of the services will let you sign up online with just a phone # and name. So anyone who has your # could sign you up without your knowledge. I really wish they would outlaw those companies!
Alas, it's probably illegal to hunt down cell phone numbers belonging to these companies and signing them up for all of their own services. But it does ring of poetic justice.
1) you buy insurance, you have to have a license to drive. Everyone knows the rules. No surprises.
2) You buy a cell phone, add unlimited text. Most people would assume that includes all TEXTS. But NO, You have to block this and block that or you will get charged extra. Unless the sales person explains to the customer about premium text messaging, how is the customer to know?
Now should sprint eat the charges, That is a hard one for 3 reasons.
How did sprint allow the bill to get so high without red flags blowing in the wind.
Did the sales rep notify and/or explain to the customer that premium text was not in...
(continues)
just_asking said:
1) you buy insurance, you have to have a license to drive. Everyone knows the rules. No surprises.
2) You buy a cell phone, add unlimited text. Most people would assume that includes all TEXTS. But NO, You have to block this and block that or you will get charged extra. Unless the sales person explains to the customer about premium text messaging, how is the customer to know?
1. you ASSUME that everyone knows the rules.(they dont)
2. yes all parents assume that txt and internet are included, that is why i ALWAYS tell them that they arent and if they want it they have to buy a package. we get paid to sell these things so i woulndt understand why a rep wouldnt be explaini...
(continues)
its like buying a gun and giving it to a random person. you technically dont know what they are doing with it but you know what they could....
poweredup said:
oh and she can't legally accept the charges if she signed a contract underage but then again it(the phone) wasnt/isnt her responsibility, it is the account holders and according to the t&c (i know i know) all charges to the phone are the account holders responsibility.
its like buying a gun and giving it to a random person. you technically dont know what they are doing with it but you know what they could....
That's a bit of a strawman.
just_asking said:
If the child is under 18, can she legally accept the charges?
Child is over 18, but her disability might well mean that she is legally unable to enter into contracts on her own... meaning she can't accept the charges. All depends upon the degree of the disability.
OfAMightDivine said:
If she's reasonably able to use the service, she's able to accept the charges.
This is apparently the policy of the third party company in this example. It is certainly your opinion. How about legally?
You will still recieving sms from your family and friends.