Slashdot Mirror


How To Rack Up $28,000 In Roaming Without Leaving the US

pmbasehore writes "While waiting for his cruise ship to depart, a man decided to use his AT&T wireless card and Slingbox account to watch the Bears vs. Lions football game. When he got his bill, he was slammed with $28,067.31 in 'International Roaming' charges, even though he never left American soil. The bill was finally dropped to $290.65, but only after the media got involved." He might have left the soil (the story says he was already aboard the ship), but shouldn't the dock count?

27 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He might have left the soil (the story says he was already aboard the ship), but shouldn't the dock count?

    Which means it is likely he was in internal waters (description here) so unless his contract had a specific clause phrasing "Internal Waters" to be a roaming area then I would assume it is no different than boating out on a lake in Kansas and not subject to roaming charges. Even $290 seems more than a bit steep & unfair.

    I'd pay it and change providers but if he's upset, there's always small claims court.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by Samalie · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to dig pretty deep for this to actually be specified, but he was docked at Miami, before the ship ever left port.

      The cock-up was that the ship had already turned on their satellite-based cell network, even though they shouldn't have, which resulted in the guy's phone connecting to the Ship's netwrok & being billed at international rates.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's likely that he wasn't roaming because he was already registered through the telco relay on the ship, which charges at international rates, despite being within spitting distance of the shore.

      The real problem is that he was able to register to the international point before the ship had left port. I wonder how many other people get ripped off by making calls in that area while that ship is in port?

      I think he should take it to court...

    3. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precisely. It's not a grand conspiracy. It's just technology going "a little kha-ka" and the customer having to pay the bill, because a poor design caused him to connect to the international cell tower instead of the local U.S.-based tower.

      That's the unfair part. The customer has to pay for somebody else's technological error. If I was the customer, I'd say "fuck you" and refuse to pay.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I suspected, TFA says he was connected to the ship's cell network, which should not have been operational while it was docked.

      So it's not just me having horrible experiences with AT&T, then. I tried to get DSL service from them last year. After four technician visits, I had service for two full days before it stopped working. I canceled service and returned the equipment in their postage-paid box, and they sent me a $70 bill. I called to complain, and told them I was willing to pay for the two days I had service, and nothing more. They told me they'd look into it, but they had no way of sending me a corrected bill. I did not pay them a penny, and I have not heard from them again.

      We also had phone service with them for a bit. When I set it up, I specifically asked for unlimited calling to Canada, and was assured it was on the plan. I called back again for another reason, and was again assured that I had unlimited calling to Canada. Next month's bill? $1200. They had not added unlimited calling to Canada. It took me about a half-dozen calls to sort it out, during which time I was told that it was impossible for me to talk to anyone who was capable of modifying my bill, because "they don't have phone numbers."

      I recently had to deal with AT&T Wireless, and was asked to verify my identity. I provided my information, and they told me it was incorrect. I told them they were incorrect. After about two hours of phone calls, it turns out they were using a default value for the information they asked for. When I provided the actual value, they looked at the default, and said that I was wrong. Apparently they could not figure out that "9999" was probably not the actual last 4 digits of anyone's SSN.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    5. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is completely ridiculous. Customers should be able to set a bill cap to prevent this kind of thing. If you hit the cap, your access gets cut unless you explicitly give permission to charge more. That's why I use a prepaid phone (I live in Germany, so it's dirt cheap here).

    6. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is completely ridiculous. Customers should be able to set a bill cap to prevent this kind of thing. If you hit the cap, your access gets cut unless you explicitly give permission to charge more. That's why I use a prepaid phone (I live in Germany, so it's dirt cheap here).

      Such a cap wouldn't really help you with situations like these. When you roam on another provider that provider doesn't send your call details back to your home provider in real time. They typically collect a few days worth of calls and then upload them to your home provider. There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.

      That's a bit of an overstatement. There are several ways of speeding up the information and if you use CAMEL it's possible for the home network to specify some limits in advance which gives full real time billing control. It would take a certain amount of effort, but it's not nearly impossible nowadays. How do you think prepaid subscribers get service when they go abroad? Do you think the phone company lets you rack up 28k Euro charges on your 30Euro prepaid SIM before doing reconciliation?

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    8. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't call it a poor design.

      I certainly would. A cellphone should never choose a roaming cell over a local one.

      The design is to connect to the tower with the best reception.

      In the UK, early on in the development of digital cellphones, some users complained that their phones would pick up transmitters from France if they were near the coast (presumably the Calais transmitter was closer than the nearest one from their network).

      As far as I know, this doesn't happen now. A phone won't chose a transmitter from abroad over a local one.

    9. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is ridiculous. The roaming provider can stream slingbox to a user but they can't keep usage data up to date in near real-time? No such cap exists because it's more profitable to fuck over people than to implement it.

    10. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AT&T pulled a rate-switch without notice on me - tripled, I think it was. I changed providers and told them to stick the ($45) bill wherever they like. They sent it to collections, who called me at work once, I don't think I even had to write the cease and desist order to them, they complied with my verbal demand. AT&T called me at home a couple of times and whined, I told them to show me the contract I signed (in 1988 when I got the card) that allowed them to triple my rates without notice. They sent me a notice a couple of years later (like 1998 or so by then) informing me that they can notify of rate changes on their website, all I had to do was pay my last bill to acknowledge acceptance of their terms. Needless to say.....

      I had one tiny spot of trouble trying to get a CellularOne cell phone (they were about to be acquired by AT&T), they wanted a $700 deposit - I asked the in-store rep to allow me to talk to the person who came up with that, the person on the other end of the line pointed out my $45 outstanding balance with AT&T, I pointed out the hillarious disproportionality between a disputed $45 bill several years old and a $700 deposit and asked her if CellularOne wanted my business or not... they did, deposit waived.

      The $45 dispute was about 6.9 years old when I went to rent a house, it made a good story for the potential landlord - yep, all that time and the only problem I have on my credit is when an asshole corporation tried to throw their weight around, would you honor a bill when the vendor tripled their rates on you without notice? They said they'd do the same thing.

    11. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by mea37 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "The design is to connect to the tower with the best reception"

      But as this story points out, there are factors other than "best reception" than can weigh into which tower is best to connect to. Looking at only one factor in a multi-dimensional problem is a poor design.

      In a good design, the phone would connect to a "home network" tower with "acceptable" reception before even looking at an "international roaming / if you have to ask you can't afford it" tower.

    12. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>The only real WTF was that the ship turned on their "tower" before it left port

      I would agree with you, but the same design flaw exists near the Canadian border. You can be on U.S. soil, and yet still be charged international rates because your dumb phone connected to a Canadian tower. That's a technological flaw, and the customer should not have to pay the price for the mistake.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by fdicostanzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, according to the article, AT&T was sending him repeated SMS warnings but he did not get them because it was a data card, not a phone. That means to me that they did know what was going on and a cap could be implemented.

      --
      Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
    14. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by wwwillem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had the same battle with my provider (Rogers in Canada). Because I'm "tethering" (connecting a Nokia N770 tablet with BlueTooth to my KRZR phone) the "best" data package I can get is $10 for 10 MB, nothing bigger. However if I go over those 10MB, they charge me 3 cts per kB. Which means that the second 10MB will cost me $300.

      BTW, my first night of surfing a little to maps.google (just 20 mins, nothing more) did indeed cost me $75.

      But the kicker is that I can't get a bigger package, Rogers is not able or willing to put a 10MB cap on it and finally -- this is the worst part -- I can't get an status report to check how much of my quota I've used up.

      This is not just rediculous, but simply "providers screwing there customers, because they can".

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    15. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know, leave the fucking techno-toys behind and relax on the boat??? Get some drinks, mingle with people?

      Let's see. You come to a site where people love techno-toys and don't have much in the mingly-personality department. Then you foul-talk the toys and encourage a not-much-loved behavior.

      I wish I had your courage ;-)

    16. Re:Did His Contract Specify "Internal Waters"? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are several ways of speeding up the information and if you use CAMEL

      My parents come from Egypt and assure me sending messages by Camel is very slow!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  2. Still 290$? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The correct answer is ZERO. He was not roaming and there should be no additional charges, other than his monthly access fee.

    Even if his usage exceeded what is acceptable for AT&T, there is no provision in the contracts that allow them to assess that kind of penalty.

    I would fight it still.

  3. Could a mobile on the beach connect to a ship? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if there is any danger of this happening to anyone using a mobile near the coast?

    1. Re:Could a mobile on the beach connect to a ship? by The+Slashdot+Oracle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder if there is any danger of this happening to anyone using a mobile near the coast?

      Yes.

      Thank you for consulting The Slashdot Oracle.

    2. Re:Could a mobile on the beach connect to a ship? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear god, how bored must you have been to create this account...

      Don't worry, i'll save you the hassle:
      ---
      "Very.

      Thank you for consulting The Slashdot Oracle."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. Happens all the time. by WiiVault · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I used to live 5 miles from the Canadian boarder I would hear nightmare stories like this all the time. People, despite being in the US would find that their cell was roaming to a Canadian tower because it had a better signal. It was bad then, even before data. Now I can only imagine how horrible it must be.

  5. He got exactly what he deserved by natet · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, he was watching the Bears vs. the Lions. No network should be forced to even touch that traffic.

    --
    IANAL... But I play one on /.
  6. Re:I recently was on a cruise by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as I hate AT&T, this just isn't their fault this time.

    Actually it is their fault. AT&T disables the ability of their phones to display a proper roaming banner. Regardless of which network you are on your phone will always say "AT&T". On the other hand, T-Mobile will show the name of the actual network you are connected to, i.e: "T-Mobile", "AT&T", "Cellular One", etc, etc. Given that AT&T removes your ability to know when your phone is roaming I would say that it's very much their fault when people rack up roaming charges by accident.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Re:Color me paranoid by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed. As a matter of law consumers should be able to set limits on any services they contract.

    My cell phone provider offers an allowance "service" for a few bucks a month. It is crazy that you should have to pay to limit your exposure.

    Consumers should be asked what their maximum monthly bill should be when they sign up for service, and they should be able to change this at any time by calling the provider. Any fee in excess of this amount would not be collectable, and it couldn't be applied to subsequent months. The phone company should give you a warning and then drop service when you hit your limit. Calls to emergency numbers like 911 would be exempt (most providers already provide free 911 access even if a phone doesn't otherwise have a plan at all).

    Companies that fail to comply should be fined out the wazoo and injunctions should be placed on credit reporting agencies to withold any negative reports from the provider. There is just no excuse for billing people $30k, $300, or even $3 for a service a consumer did not ask for.

  8. Re:I recently was on a cruise by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is ATT's fault. Pure and simple. Unless somebody puts it in writing that they want to be able to spend $30k in international roaming, then they shouldn't be able to charge it. That is an amazingly outrageous sum. And then bargaining it down to $6000 is even worse - at least the initial $30k bill was automated, but the $6000 bill was deliberately offered by a human being.

    It seems like the cell phone company MO is to trick their consumer into amazingly high bills, and then offering them ten cents on a dollar, accepting only a 5,000% markup instead of a 50,000% markup.

    By law consumers should have the right to limit their monthly bills. If a provider delivers more service than a consumer budgeted for then the bill is on them.

  9. Re: $ 1200 bill from AT&T - try $3400 from Ver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had an almost identical experience with Verizon assuring me (sales rep & store manager at the physical store + Verizon servicedroid on the phone) that Canada is included in the plan I chose. The *reason* I chose that plan was to give a 2nd phone to one of my associates, so she could talk to partners in Canada. We got the phones, she started talking to folks in Canada, I checked the account weekly to make sure there are no extra chages (being a responsible customer and all that).

    Next month, I get a neat little SMS stating "Your Verizon bill is ready online... balance is $ 3,479.00". Holy $%^&. Their excuse was that they had no idea those charges were accumulating, and that's why they didn't show up in my account (which I was checking weekly). OK, I understand a delay of 24-48 hours... possibly a week... but a MONTH? What are they using for billing info transmission, pack mules???

    It took 17 phone calls totaling over 9 hours to sort it out & reduce it to around $ 700 (back-dating an international plan, etc.). Which I paid, and vowed to NEVER deal with Verizon again.

    So, it's not only AT&T that plays merry hell with billing practices, other carriers are guilty of that too.

    I would like to ask Verizon 2 rhetorical questions:

    1.) What's the point of having an online account system that doesn't show international charges - not a DAY later, not a WEEK later, but only for the next billing period? I was especially amused by the "Top 10 Most Expensive Calls" feature - which was $ 0.00 every time I checked.

    2.) Why would multiple people in the company LIE about a particular plan feature to a customer who explicitly states that they will definitely use the heck out of that feature? They're setting themselves up for problems.

    Verizon: can you hear THIS now? Jackasses.