How Long Should Companies Make E-Bills Available?

theodp writes "If you say goodbye to paper and hello to green, you may learn first-hand that no good deed goes unpunished. Try to pay your final Verizon Wireless bill online after switching carriers, for example, and don't be surprised if you get a sorry-Dave-I'm-afraid-I-can't-do-that reply. Other vendors may curtail e-Bill services 30 days after you end service. And a promise of access to up to seven years of paperless statements is somewhat empty if you'll be cutoff as soon as you no longer have an account. With more-and-more companies enticing consumers to go paperless, how long a period of time should the records be made available online? Should it extend beyond the life of an account?"

Comments

if the tax agency comes knocking...

[timmarhy]

... i bet they are still available.

Re:if the tax agency comes knocking...

[commodore64_love]

Well of course they're still available. I called my Discover Card one time to look-up old statements from three years ago, and they were not available online, so they politely mailed me printouts. There was no charge.

As for going paperless, I've not done it because I'd probably forget to pay the bill! ;-)
Receiving that paper in the mail is a convenient reminder.

Re:if the tax agency comes knocking...

[nahdude812]

I thought this eBill thing was a neat idea when it first came out years ago for one of my monthly services. So I signed up for it. There was an error in my billing a few months later, and I called and had it corrected. Instead of showing up as a correction on my following billing statement, they had changed the original incorrect bill. Looking at my online account, everything seemed as if it had never had an error.

I canceled eBill immediately and refuse it from all other vendors now. I want this information for my own records, and I don't want them being the one who controls it and gets to rewrite history in case there was a problem.

I'd consider it if they could email me a PDF of the same document that comes as a paper bill. They can put all those other bells and whistles on too if they want, but I want a copy in my possession that they don't have access to change, without having to remember to save it out by hand every month, and in a format that gives me the legal leverage I need to be able to prove the document came from them (eg, email headers on the email with the attachment on a 3rd party mail server such as GMail).

EBilling is a way for your service provider to control history, and to deny you access to information which might condemn them should they screw up in some serious way. I need better control over this than ebilling provides.

Re:if the tax agency comes knocking...

[bigstrat2003]

As for going paperless, I've not done it because I'd probably forget to pay the bill!

Heh, it's exactly the opposite for me. When I have a paper bill, I remember that I need to pay the bill, but never to actually do it. I'm always remembering "Oh yeah, I need to send that check out!" while I'm at work. I've even had an envelope with a check in it sit on my counter for weeks... all ready to go, I just needed to remember to take it to a mailbox.

With e-bill, I can accommodate my stupid brain, and pay it when I remember to do it, instantly. ;)

statute of limitations

[Bunyip Redgum]

They should provide access as long as one might reasonably need it which is at least as long as the statute of limitations give one to take legal action.

Have NAS, will save

[DaHat]

For years any time I had a bill, statement, tax form or other document I thought "You know... there is a remote possibility I might just want that in a year or 9"... I'd do a quick Print to PDF and bang... I've got my own copy without any need to wonder 'how long should they keep it for me'.

Sure... the hard drive it's own could die, but because in this horrible thing called self reliance... I take steps to make sure that I will still have access to copies just in case without having to ask such questions or worry about hard drive death or house fires.

Personal responsibility... try it!

Entitlement ... what is with it?

[shri]

Is it me or are people just whinging about the smallest thing? I fail to see why any institution that I've chosen not to do business with, should continue to serve me for free. If a paper trail is that important, print a copy of the bill and file it, or create PDF of the online bill and store it.

Re:Entitlement ... what is with it?

[thegrassyknowl]

Not being allowed to see the closing statement for your account is quite a big deal if you are unsure of the balance they want paying.

I am still going through this with my phone company. They didn't send me the final bill then dropped the account with debt collectors. When I called up to request a bill they added a $5 charge and posted it to the wrong address, after putting me on hold for about an hour. A full day of my time later I finally got a correct payout figure from them; and it was worth a lot less than the lost income.

Suffice to say, it's going to court this year to recover my lost income for spending a full day chasing the issue and not being able to work, for having to avoid getting listed on the bad credit register.

more paper == more trees

[snowgirl]

I hate how people think that reducing paper will reduce environmental impact. Trees that are used for paper grow VERY fast, and even out here in the Pacific Northwest, in logging country, I've seen the clear cut fields, but what they don't show you, is across the road is a 5/10 year old forest that is already hella bigger than you ever thought trees could grow in 5/10 years. I dated an ex-logger for awhile, and he told me, "we cannot cut it down fast enough."

If you want to save trees, DON'T WORRY ABOUT PAPER OR WOOD PRODUCTS, those industries cannot use the wood fast enough. What you DO want to worry about are the people CLEAR CUTTING RAIN FOREST LAND in order to grow enough crop in order to feed their family. Give subsidizes to every farmer near the rain forests to not go out clear cutting, and WOW! Deforestation problem solved.

"Paperless is green" is a foul's quest. BTW, I also dated a guy working at a paper mill, toilet paper, and paper towels (even nice paper towels) are made from saw dust... the scrap that is left over from making lumber. They're actually using WASTE product to make their consumer products. So, again, use as much toilet paper as you want, we won't exceed available supplies of WASTE SAW DUST.

Re:more paper == more trees

[hab136]

"Paperless is green" is a foul's quest.

A chicken's quest? Probably meant "fool", but it's funnier this way. :)

Anyways the "paperless is green" idea isn't because we're going to run out of wood. Almost all paper is made from trees that are grown (and replanted and regrown) for that purpose. However turning that wood into paper and shipping it to the utility uses energy and money. Putting ink on the paper likewise isn't free, and mailing it (in postal trucks that burn gas) isn't free either.

Whether you measure in total energy spent or dollars, it's cheaper to have online bills than mailing out paper statements. Most places let you download a PDF of what the paper statement would have been, giving you the efficiencies of online bills while still being able to have a copy of old bills (and print them on demand).

Utilities push online billing because it saves them money; the fact that it also saves energy in the process and is more convenient for consumers is a win/win/win.

Re:more paper == more trees

[Psychotria]

If you want to save trees, DON'T WORRY ABOUT PAPER OR WOOD PRODUCTS, those industries cannot use the wood fast enough.

I respect your belief, but I think you're wrong. Those plantations that grow the trees that you say will supply paper endlessly are, I hate to say it, finite in area. Therefore, the paper they can produce is finite. Now, I guess the other thing you're saying is that they're plantation trees being felled. Now, that is correct. But before it was a plantation it was probably a native forest. Now, those forests were cleared many years ago, so arguing the point now is... pointless--they're plantation trees now. Also, what happens when those areas can no longer supply the growing consumption of paper and other wood-derived products? They'll have to clear some more native forest for more plantations.

Now, the other issue you raise:

What you DO want to worry about are the people CLEAR CUTTING RAIN FOREST LAND in order to grow enough crop in order to feed their family

There is some merit to what I think you may have been trying to argue. There are poor people. People on the edge of existence. They have to clear rainforest to grow crops to exist. Yep, that is true. But why are you shifting the focus onto these people struggling to survive? A better question is (to ask yourself): "I use 1000 peices of paper a day, and toilet paper, and I eat 3 square meals. How many trees do I need to clear to achieve that"? Shifting the blame onto the South American indian who grows a few tomatos and lettuce crops is insane. Where does your food come from? McDonalds? Yeah, McDonalds don't cause deforestation; after all, they're just a little building in a carpark and they import all their beef. Beef raised on, umm, treeless paddocks, or in Sth America on huge ranches. Not our fault. It's all those pesky farmers. They're the real problem. Maybe you should ask yourself why these poor people are forced to 'intrude' into uncut rainforest areas. Is it them supporting themselves or, indirectly their rich superiors, or even more indirectly, you?

Just one last thing. I thank-you for passing on all those interesting anecdotes that your boy friends have told you. But, alas, I think they're wrong as well.

Re:more paper == more trees

[HungryHobo]

Ah the old "it's all your fault because you live in a wealthy country."
There has to be someone close at hand to blame.
It couldn't stop at the shitty governments in south America. No.
It can't stop at the overly powerful companies. No.
God forbid.
No, it has to be shifted until the person you're talking to is being held responsible because he walked past one of the above on the street one day.
Why? because *random person in the first world* hasn't hunted down and shot the CEO of Mcdonalds? Because he's occasionally paid for services from the company?

So any transfer of money now makes you responsible for all evil done by everyone who touches that money from that point on?
Are you responsible for rapes committed by that weird guy working at costco? If you hadn't given money to the store where he worked in exchange for that product you wanted they mightn't have been able to pay him which might have meant he wouldn't have been able to afford the van he abducted his victims with!
YOU MURDERER!

There's good reason to shift the focus on to people who are doing the slash and burn. He didn't demonise them, he recognised that they have a very good reason to do what they're doing. And in the end they're the people who have to be helped if we want to do something about the problem. Going after the CEO of McDonald's might have the whole David vs Goliath feel but in this case beating the Goliath would do sweet fuck all. Another company would step in to fill their place, or 3 companies owned through the philippines would step in and do the same thing and sell on to a 4th based in the Bahamas which would sell on to McDonalds or Walmart or ten thousand independent little bars, cafes, restaurants and diners which are not part of any giant and easy to complain about company.

Re:Alternative to online account access/storage

[DSmith1974]

Because statements sent from Bob to Alice would likely be intercepted by Carol who could use that information to the detriment of Alice. What we need is encrypted email, but since the majority of users don't care/couldn't decrypt it anyway, it won't happen until the process is made totally seamless which is up to us engineers. But since the banks are more often passing on the cost of fraud back to the customer and charging twice to insure an already safe bank account against identity theft - why should they care enough to spend the big bucks to do a proper job?

What's the value in deleting records?

[mcrbids]

Thanks to Moore's law, there is very little value in deleting records except in very extreme cases, or when the data itself acts as an un-necessary liability.

If you assume that you have enough storage for the current year on hand, are you going to more-than double the amount of storage you need over the next 18 months? Very few business will say "yes" to this, and thus the cost of storing everything is DROPPING with each passing year, despite the ever rising amount of it.

We recently upgraded one of our D2D backup arrays from 300 GB drives to 1.5 TB SATA drives. For less than the cost of the original array of 300 GB drives, we ended up with 5 times the storage space in just over 2 years, meaning that the cost of the old data is now 1/5 what it used to be. We were profitable keeping that data 2 years ago, so in a sense, we are 5x as profitable keeping that same information today!

So why would we delete it?

It doesn't stop paper arriving though!

[MessyBlob]

In my experience, paperless billing only cuts paper by about 20%. Companies and institutions that are savvy enough allow the switchover to paperless billing, are also savvy enough to have a continuous mailshot campaign. The result is that you are still mailbombed and sent changes to T&Cs, for example. The cynical view is that 'paperless billing' is Greenwash (go look that word up if you haven't seen it before) - it's really about saving the company money by not paying the third-party billing service.

Re:Alternative to online account access/storage

[xaxa]

My previous mobile contract had paperless billing, and you could either view the bill as HTML, or click the "Download" button which gave you a PDF to save. This was over SSL, of course. You could email it to yourself if you really wanted to.
I don't know if/when they'll close the account, but it's now been open for about a month after the contract ended.

If I asked for a duplicate paper copy of a bill in two years time, it would be reasonable for the company to charge me. So, I don't see why they should have to keep the bill-viewing service running indefinitely either.

My bank holds (for free) information for 18 monts

[Ux64]

Yes, they're still available... For a price. I just found out that my bank stores bills, balance sheets etc important information only for 18 months. After that I can for sure get those records, but it'll cost me 50 / month (balance sheets). Nice cost, eh. Stock exchange information is even more expensive. So they do for sure keep records, but you can't access those for free. That's why I store everything yearly on my own server and take backups.

Re:Alternative to online account access/storage

[commodore64_love]

>>>Because statements sent from Bob to Alice would likely be intercepted by Carol

So? My neighbors routinely intercept my snail-mail, and yet they've never sought to do harm to me. They just politely wrote "forward" and it eventually found its way to me. People have this false belief that physical mail is somehow more secure, but in reality it's just as vulnerable as email.

Re:Alternative to online account access/storage

[DSmith1974]

I think the point is that unless your neighbours had steamed open your letter and carefully re-sealed it then they didn't get to see your current balance and account number. Also, there's a good chance that the two families which live either side of you would not be tempted to commit crime in the small number of instances that your postman makes a mistake in delivering your mail to wrong house each year - as apposed to the potentially large number of anonymous and largely untrackable entities which may exist in the pipe-line between the banks mail server and your in-box who are actively seeking this traffic for malice for every single communication.

Another blow against libertarianism here on /.

[unassimilatible]

Didn't we just have this discussion?

It's called a contract people. Are finally at the point where there is just no such thing as freedom of contract, and therefor contracts no longer mean anything? There is no duty on "the little guy" to actually download and save his own records, after choosing a paperless billing? So again we are calling for the nanny state, that which is so vilified when it tries to do the things government was founded for - protect me and my shit from bad guys, foreign and domestic - to intervene in private contracts because we don't happen to like one of the contractors? So it's a horrible slippery slope to force a rapist to turn over his e-mail account, to drain a mosquito of blood to catch a car thief, or to use technology to catch a terrist outside of the country. That's going to lead to all of our civil liberties being trampled.

But go ahead nanny state, go right on in and arbitrarily intervene in private contracts. Because we here at Slashdot are libertarians for us, and statists for the other guy.

Re:Another blow against libertarianism here on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a contract people. Are finally at the point where there is just no such thing as freedom of contract, and therefor contracts no longer mean anything?

Based on some recent dealings with with large companies, I'm becoming convinced that no, contracts don't mean anything any more.

Things like claiming someone owes them more money even after they've fulfilled the letter of the contract, then when it gets to court, backpedalling and saying they made a mistake, but it's too late now because they've already sold the debt to a debt collector. At that point, under the law here, *someone* has to pay the debt collector, and guess who has a pair of big guys come around and start accidentally breaking the stuff in your lounge room until you sign a repayment plan? I'll give you a clue, it's not the mobile phone company! Of course, you *could* sue the phone company to recover the money, except that they deleted your records when you were no longer a customer, so they stand up in court and say they've never heard of you and have no idea why they owe you anything.

It's not the only case I know of where the large company decides that it's too hard to abide by the contract they wrote themselves. I can see it having a corrosive effect on society around me. If you know the other side won't abide by a contract, and will make you fight like hell to even get close to it, why stick to it yourself? And if you can only break even by breaking contracts with the big players, why not get ahead by breaking your contracts with everyone else? After all, "everyone" does it now.