Mobile Broadband Bill Shock. Why isn't it regulated?

RaoulPuke

Hi All,
The eu have a directive to ensure mobile operators cap Mobile Data Roaming bills before the reach a excessive amount, i.e. over €50, and to notify customers when high charges may be incurred:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/279
The eu frowns upon operators allowing bills to overrun into hundreds of euros, allowing "bill shock" situations.

However, mobile broadband operators still uses this billing mechanism. Once the data allowance cap is passed, no notification is given and the bill shock scenario can occur, when the high charge per MB cuts in.
Why is this practice still permitted? If it's wrong for roaming sure it's wrong for mobile broadband?
Is it just the case that it never has received the same publicity or bills running up to 100k etc?

Paulw

Because you're not roaming, and the EU regulation applies to roaming data charges?

RaoulPuke

Yes I realise that. You've missed my point, it's the billing practice that directive is really tackling, not the product. I realise that this particular directive only addresses roaming charges.
But why should the billing practice be still deemed ok for another product (the mobile broadband)
I know there is no directive to specifically tackle the mobile broadband so the operators can continue without getting a slap on the wrist from comreg, but shouldn't it be tackled?

Cabaal

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Once the data allowance cap is passed, no notification is given and the bill shock scenario can occur, when the high charge per MB cuts in.
Why is this practice still permitted? If it's wrong for roaming sure it's wrong for mobile broadband?
Is it just the case that it never has received the same publicity or bills running up to 100k etc?

In all honestly I don't believe there has been anybody that has hit a bill of 100k, a few k yes but not 100k.

As for notification, well there;s two sides to this.
- Customers have to take a level of responsibility, the information is supplied to them but many do ignore it and selectively see words such as the cheap price but pay no attention to the low low cap.

Additionally if say somebody got a landline and called premium rate lines running up hundreds (alot of people do this) do we blame the big bad operator or the foolish adult?

- On the operator site they do give users usage monitors, many even have the options for users to cut off access when limits are reached.

Sure implementing something else would be nice but system changes generally cost money.

As for your link to europa, well as Paulw....if your not roaming then your not covered by that.

RaoulPuke

Apologies, ok €46k and other such cases, the eu have deemed that over €50 too much as so that is where the cap should lie.
I believe in general a customer may be aware of a low cap, will know what a MB or GB bit will look like when using broadband or clicking on a webpage.
In the case of a premium rate number, the charge on the number doesn't change at a non intuitive point. Also I believe a "minute" in billing terms should be a tangible enough unit to anyone with the ability to dial the number.
Usage monitors for broadband are available but I'm not aware of any that allow users to cap as you say?
Was there anything preventing a roaming customer to check up on their bill? Such a billing system change for the operator is not costly to implement, but when this excessive charging is removed they may incur a short term dip in profit.
Again I'm well aware the directive doesn't cover this, the link was to make the comparison between this scenario and the roaming scenario

MOH

The whole point of the roaming scenario would be consumers in different countries getting hit with excessive rates compared to using the same service back home.

This is a completely different situation - it's up to the customer to take responsibility for their own usage. There's any number of apps for monitoring data usage freely available. It's also pretty easy to turn your mobile data off at any time.

Paulw

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Usage monitors for broadband are available but I'm not aware of any that allow users to cap as you say?
Was there anything preventing a roaming customer to check up on their bill? Such a billing system change for the operator is not costly to implement, but when this excessive charging is removed they may incur a short term dip in profit.

Consumers need to take responsibility for their own actions. They are able to download apps that can calculate usage. Once it gets near their cap, they should monitor it much closer. Once they hit their cap they should either stop using or else be aware of the extra charges.

As for the cost of altering a billing system, you clearly don't understand telecoms and the cost of such systems.

You can't have IT systems there to stop every scenario, especially when it's the consumer's fault in the first place.

efb

If you can't handle the responsibility of billpay stick to prepay

RaoulPuke

Wow, so nobody thinks that consumers should be protected and regulators should rule out dodgy billing practices?
You could also then argue that why in the name of god would anyone leave data turned on when roaming or not be aware that roaming charges can be massive, sure everyone knows that, and if you are unsure, keep checking you usage.Sure only a fool would leave it on roaming!
It seems that I'm the only one that feels that regulation should be introduced here!

..Oh me and the FCC and CTIA in the US:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/101711-ctia-fcc-bill-shock-252032.html

And apparently the british regulator:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/371314/mobile-companies-dismiss-bill-shock-accusation

Dodge

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Wow, so nobody thinks that consumers should be protected and regulators should rule out dodgy billing practices?

I think everyone is against dodgy billing practices

Most people seem to agree that charging users for going over any agreed limits at a fixed rate that has been communicated to the user, isn't a dodgy billing practice

RaoulPuke

By most people you mean the few responses here? The uk Comms ombudsman seems to think it is worthwhile tackling the operators in the uk on the matter.
The transition point from within the agreed limit to the high price limit is not clear to an "average" user.
If the same practice was employed for electricity or gas billing where users jump to a high rate (at a limit agreed) there would be a lot different opinion on the matter.

Dodge

RaoulPuke wrote: »

By most people you mean the few responses here?

Clearly. you used the "nobody". I didn't think you were talking about the whole world...

The transition point from within the agreed limit to the high price limit is not clear to an "average" user.

Its clear to anyone who's read the terms and conditions

If the same practice was employed for electricity or gas billing where users jump to a high rate (at a limit agreed) there would be a lot different opinion on the matter.

Might have a few more moaning about it (as far more people use those services) but the point remains. if a company offers a service, and is clear about its pricing, then its the customer's fault if there bill is high

JaneyMacker

I think that any consumer should be able to say "STOP ME IF I GO OVER THE AGREED AMOUNT" and do not charge me, with any product.

You should be cut off when you go over your cap if you have requested this. Fine if you want to continue running up a bill put it should be opt in.
Any extra charges should be opt in at the point when they start levying the higher rate - when you go over your cap. Either you should have to ring them or send a text to continue.

Consumers need to be protected both from themselves and accidents.

My mother had mobile broadband that had a cap of 1GB (cant remember what it was exactly). She hardly ever uses the internet. just the odd email. All of a sudden she got a bill for €450 for going over the cap. It turned out my nephews had been watching videos all day everyday on the computer when they stayed with her for a week during the summer.

Take the premium phone line example above.
Imagine a person has a phone. Their kid dials a premium number they saw in the paper and drops the phone to go play with their dog. Big bills for the bill payer there.

Paulw

JaneyMacker wrote: »

Consumers need to be protected both from themselves and accidents.

No, consumers need to take responsibility for their own actions/accidents.

If you walk in to a lamp post, is it your own fault, or the fault of the local authority who put it there??

You're given a contract when you sign up with a mobile operator. You are given the terms and conditions (or given info as to the web address where they can be found). By signing up to a bill pay service, you agree with the charges on that tariff.

If you can't deal with that responsibility, then go pre-paid.

Cabaal

RaoulPuke wrote: »

The uk Comms ombudsman seems to think it is worthwhile tackling the operators in the uk on the matter

Who exactly?
Do you mean the OFCOM or Ombudsman Services: Communications ?.

I've worked in the telecoms industry for years, frankly its scary the amount of end users who just refuse to take any personal responsibility for their own errors and actions.

Providers will be reasonable to a "point" however these services are only intended for over 18 and if your not adult enough to read the Terms & Conditions, ask questions if you don;t understand them and follow your rights and responsibilities as set out in them then don't sign up to these services!

Would you sign up to a loan agreement without reading the small print, the same goes for any contracted service with T&C's...they don't exist to look pretty they exist for a very good reason.

RaoulPuke

Dodge wrote: »

Clearly. you used the "nobody". I didn't think you were talking about the whole world...

Apologies, "nobody here" was intended, referring to the couple of people replying and reading

Dodge wrote: »

Its clear to anyone who's read the terms and conditions

Explain this? No matter how many times you'd read the terms and conditions you'd be still no wiser as exactly when you transition over the limit and start getting charged a higher rate. Sure you know exactly where the limit is on paper, but when it actually occurs is the point of interest.

Dodge wrote: »

Might have a few more moaning about it (as far more people use those services) but the point remains. if a company offers a service, and is clear about its pricing, then its the customer's fault if there bill is high

Lack of clarity in the pricing is my point. You can be aware of the cost of the service but here you cannot tell when you are being charged which rate.
Steps have been taken to aid people living near the boarder who's phones would start roaming without their awareness. (roaming charges of all networks are all clearly stated if you read the terms and conditions)
Steps have been taken for data roaming to cap bills as default.
So then the mobile broadband case is acceptable because there is enough "moaning"?

You overlooked commenting on the fact that other countries regulators consider it worth moaning about.

JaneyMacker:
Your case is a great example of why I believe this billing practice should be stopped.
And if the capability is there to place caps/warnings on any of these products then why not ensure they are introduced to benefit everyone.

Paulw

Have you tried approaching the mobile operators with your gripe? What response have you received?

Have you tried contacting ComReg?

RaoulPuke

Yes to both. Service provider said basically that that's how they bill. Comreg: say as there is no specific directive on it it's not of interest to them.

RaoulPuke

Cabaal wrote: »

Who exactly?
Do you mean the OFCOM or Ombudsman Services: Communications ?.

I've worked in the telecoms industry for years, frankly its scary the amount of end users who just refuse to take any personal responsibility for their own errors and actions.

Providers will be reasonable to a "point" however these services are only intended for over 18 and if your not adult enough to read the Terms & Conditions, ask questions if you don;t understand them and follow your rights and responsibilities as set out in them then don't sign up to these services!

Would you sign up to a loan agreement without reading the small print, the same goes for any contracted service with T&C's...they don't exist to look pretty they exist for a very good reason.

..I provided links on your first question.

..and have also made the point that people roaming have also access to all the T&C's etc so why is this treated differently?

drunkmonkey

You can bring down your credit limit with 3, but there's a thread in the talk to form with people furious that 3 put a limit on their account without telling them, they assumed they would have no limit and are now spitting.

Anway the moral of the story is, its feckin impossible to please everybody.

Paulw

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Yes to both. Service provider said basically that that's how they bill. Comreg: say as there is no specific directive on it it's not of interest to them.

End of topic so. Time for people to take responsibility for their own data usage.

The vast majority of users don't go much over their cap. The majority don't even hit their cap. Only a very small number of users go over their caps running up large bills.

RaoulPuke

Paulw wrote: »

End of topic so. Time for people to take responsibility for their own data usage.

The vast majority of users don't go much over their cap. The majority don't even hit their cap. Only a very small number of users go over their caps running up large bills.

and again..... then why did they regulate roaming then?

Paulw

RaoulPuke wrote: »

and again..... then why did they regulate roaming then?

Because charges differed from country to country and from operator to operator. Because a large number of people travel and roam, and data roaming on foreign networks was to be regulated all across Europe. It was an international problem which crossed borders.

jor el

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Wow, so nobody thinks that consumers should be protected and regulators should rule out dodgy billing practices?

Where exactly are these dodgy billing practices that you mention? If you mean the fact that the operators list the charges that apply for out of bundle data usage, then I'd ask how is telling customers what the charges are in any way dodgy? If you mean that the charge exists at all, then I'd ask why shouldn't they charge for out of bundle usage? The charges are not hidden by the operators, they don't lie to you about them, and they don't disguise the usage caps. They also give you a means of checking your usage. People need to take personal responsibility for what services they use and what contracts they sign.

If you're talking about the amount they charge, then this is nothing new either. Out of bundle charges for calls and texts have always been higher than the inclusive minutes/texts. I'm always amazed that some people are shocked to find out that data charges are treated in the exact same way, yet this is somehow a complete surprise to them. Assuming the charge wouldn't be that high is simply not good enough. If you're responsible enough to sign a contract, then you're responsible enough to find out what charges apply. You don't even need to read through fine print to find them as all the operators list the charges openly and clearly.

RaoulPuke wrote: »

and again..... then why did they regulate roaming then?

Roaming charges apply immediately, with no bundle data allowance. The charges are also much higher than anything the end user would have previously seen, leading to a comparatively far higher bill.

It is down to stupidity and/or laziness that people didn't know or care that roaming charges would apply for data roaming in the first place. Anyone that's never heard of roaming costing more on your phone than it does at home must be living under a rock, and anyone that didn't bother to check out how much it might cost for data roaming before doing it is, quite frankly, an idiot. "I didn't know" is not and should not be an acceptable excuse.

BrianD

RaoulPuke wrote: »

Wow, so nobody thinks that consumers should be protected and regulators should rule out dodgy billing practices?
You could also then argue that why in the name of god would anyone leave data turned on when roaming or not be aware that roaming charges can be massive, sure everyone knows that, and if you are unsure, keep checking you usage.Sure only a fool would leave it on roaming!
It seems that I'm the only one that feels that regulation should be introduced here!

..Oh me and the FCC and CTIA in the US:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/101711-ctia-fcc-bill-shock-252032.html

And apparently the british regulator:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/371314/mobile-companies-dismiss-bill-shock-accusation

If you are using a mobile broadband stick, Vodafone send you a SMS when you get close to your monthly allowance.

If you subscribe to a service such as phone or broadband you would have received the T&C's and the tarriff. You know what it costs. Why would there be a need to cap you? You should be allowed use and pay for as much as you like without hinderance.

If you are roaming, rates vary between country and operators that it's impossible for any reasonable person to know every rate so it makes sense to cap it. Plus billing may not be live so a customer may not be able to check their own usage.

JaneyMacker

BrianD wrote: »

If you are using a mobile broadband stick, Vodafone send you a SMS when you get close to your monthly allowance.

If you subscribe to a service such as phone or broadband you would have received the T&C's and the tarriff. You know what it costs. Why would there be a need to cap you? You should be allowed use and pay for as much as you like without hinderance.

If you are roaming, rates vary between country and operators that it's impossible for any reasonable person to know every rate so it makes sense to cap it. Plus billing may not be live so a customer may not be able to check their own usage.

id like to see you get that sms to the memory stick when its in a router.
THey dont even let you nominate another phone to send it to.

BrianD

JaneyMacker wrote: »

id like to see you get that sms to the memory stick when its in a router.
THey dont even let you nominate another phone to send it to.

So you're not using mobile broadband then?

Well you have a rate card from your provider. Read it!

If I was a provider I'd be making damn sure that you can use as much of my product as you like. The more the better.

JaneyMacker

BrianD wrote: »

So you're not using mobile broadband then?

Well you have a rate card from your provider. Read it!

If I was a provider I'd be making damn sure that you can use as much of my product as you like. The more the better.

Yes it is mobile broadband.

Del2005

RaoulPuke wrote: »

JaneyMacker:
Your case is a great example of why I believe this billing practice should be stopped.

Which billing practice should be stopped?

JaneyMacker wrote: »

My mother had mobile broadband that had a cap of 1GB (cant remember what it was exactly). She hardly ever uses the internet. just the odd email. All of a sudden she got a bill for €450 for going over the cap. It turned out my nephews had been watching videos all day everyday on the computer when they stayed with her for a week during the summer.

The one where an elderly lady has a huge bill ran up by unsupervised grand children?

JaneyMacker wrote: »

Take the premium phone line example above.
Imagine a person has a phone. Their kid dials a premium number they saw in the paper and drops the phone to go play with their dog. Big bills for the bill payer there.

Or the other one where a huge bill is run up by unsupervised children?

Both are the same yet you want regulation and the network provider to take responsibility for one and not the other

BTW The reason why network providers on mobile networks apply high charges to out of package usage is to protect their other customers. Bandwidth is limited on all mobile networks and people hogging data ruins it for others.

RaoulPuke

jor el wrote:

Where exactly are these dodgy billing practices that you mention?

Point accepted it's only considered dodgy when roaming, which I completely accept is a different case ( but my point/argument ( )being: how different it is as to how the billing is regulated.)

In the uk an ombudsman has raised the same question, again I point you to:
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/15410-eu-moves-to-eradicate-mobil
and the operators have either said the option is there or "no comment"

My point is is that others are questioning this, but our regulatory authority will only react the same after an eu directive or uk/international operators in the irish market preempt it because they will eventually be made to tow a line.
And......
In the u.s. the telecom industry have just recently decided to comply because regulation will probably benefit the consumer rather than their profits (this is a consumer forum right?this kind of thinking is why I mistook my concern to be worthy of debate)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20121252-266/bbye-bill-shock-fcc-gets-deal-from-carriers/
(also look up why customer "churn" is a big concern to the mobile data industry, a major consumer changes provider after being hit by a big bill, as soon as they can.)

btw, this billing method is very profitable: (if you can get away with it. I'm very aware that the .au scale of customers is farrr greater!)
http://www.comparebroadband.com.au/article_588_Telstra-writes-off-90m-to-mobile-broadband-bill-shock.htm

which leads to..

jor el wrote:

It is down to stupidity and/or laziness that people didn't know or care that roaming charges would apply for data roaming in the first place. Anyone that's never heard of roaming costing more on your phone than it does at home must be living under a rock, and anyone that didn't bother to check out how much it might cost for data roaming before doing it is, quite frankly, an idiot. "I didn't know" is not and should not be an acceptable excuse.

Sure isn't the entire industry built on a healthy supply of "idiots"? Sure no one ever really "needs" a data service mobile or otherwise. But you can convince many many people to get on board.

Del2005 wrote:

Quote: Originally Posted by JaneyMacker
Take the premium phone line example above.
Imagine a person has a phone. Their kid dials a premium number they saw in the paper and drops the phone to go play with their dog. Big bills for the bill payer there.


Or the other one where a huge bill is run up by unsupervised children?

Both are the same yet you want regulation and the network provider to take responsibility for one and not the other

BTW The reason why network providers on mobile networks apply high charges to out of package usage is to protect their other customers. Bandwidth is limited on all mobile networks and people hogging data ruins it

In defense here , this poster was offering 2 points of view, as in a balanced debate.
In the first point it is very it is well worth pointing out, elderly and much of the broadband target market could care less what a MB or GB looks like when clicking on a website.
But as well you may not have full control to monitor it always.. but if you can cap you bills.....then hey you are sorted, no?

"defense" cause no one seems yet to pick up on this point of view or try defend:

The main reason why the network charges for going over your allowances is:
:::You burden the network with the extra data, the cost of managing all the extra data is so much a burden you need to charge more. They only built and budget the network for so much.
.......so why not cap...... because u make a killing of course

Duke Leonal Felmet

Surely it is the responsibility of the user, unless some technical fault is at play. I don't even see why an alert is an obligation to the firm.