Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Wireless To Issue $90 Million In Refunds
tekgoblin writes "Verizon Wireless had somehow been charging customers extra money on their bills for data that they actually hadn't been using. Approximately 15 million customers were affected by the billing error. According to BGR the FCC had been pressuring Verizon to respond to the hundreds of complaints that had been piling up. So Verizon's answer was to refund all of the overcharged money as soon as possible."
If you RTFA, it actually says the overages were caused by "built in applications" such as web features on the phone put there by verizon, and then charged $1.99 for 1MB of data used despite it being merely a few kilobytes downloaded.
Also, the majority of customers will be receiving Credits instead of an actual refund. So essentially they will never get this money back.
Thank God they don't run the Internet
Otherwise:
$90 million was no "accident." This is all standard operating procedure. In some circles, this is huge theft. If done to the government, it would result in criminal charges. Being quick to refund was nothing more than cover their asse[t]s. The telecoms are all resisting FCC inquiries and we know why... we KNEW why -- because they are all massively ripping off the public.
Of course, if done BY the government, it would not.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
'$90 million was no "accident."'
Maybe it wasn't, but I find this "matter-of-fact" statement amusing. What, the fact that it's a large number makes the idea of an error impossible? A systematic error in their billing system - the kind of thing I have no problem believing would slip past a corporate QA department - could easily rack up $90M across the book of business before being noticed.
IT makes it possible to do everything - including screw up - a lot faster than you would imagine.
'This is all standard operating procedure'
Citation needed. If you've ever actually worked in a corporation, then you know that the management will do all manner of unethical thing, but only to the extent they can delude themselves into believing it's really ok. I've yet to meet an executive so far gone that he believes you can overcharge your customers and then repay the principal when you get caught. They like to be a lot more subtle than that.
'The telecoms are all resisting FCC inquiries'
All companies resist all manner of oversight. Oversight costs money even when you're following the rules. This doesn't mean that there should be no oversight, but it does mean that a company cannot be presumed guilty for trying to avoid oversight.
There's a company down the street that does billing for (I think) Sprint. Some of their developers have interviewed here. Apparently it's a pretty rough shop to work in. I dunno if it's bad legacy code or not but they have constant problems and they're always getting after hours calls. It's a big deal if a billing cycle has problems. Part of the problem is that the bills are so unnecessarily complicated. And lots of stuff *does* get flagged before it goes out. That's what happens when the company creates so many different kinds of fees and credits it could make your head spin. Anyways, at least from this end (developer) it doesn't appear to be a big corporate conspiracy to overcharge you.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
A systematic error in their billing system - the kind of thing I have no problem believing would slip past a corporate QA department - could easily rack up $90M across the book of business before being noticed.
So why would it take an FCC inquiry (and a large number of consumer complaints, endless websites/news stories about Verizon's bad data-charging habits, "Verizon Math", and even firing employees who offer service blocks to customers)?
In most cases, okay, I can totally grok the 'never attribute to malice' line. But Verizon? Sorry... they're the type where this sort of thing is designed, not accidental. Also, that $90m is likely only a portion of the money they've taken in over the years.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's interesting that your Motel 6 story is about a local franchisee screwing you over, and the national office (the Megacorps!!!) solving the problem for you.
'I've yet to meet an executive so far gone that he believes you can overcharge your customers and then repay the principal when you get caught. They like to be a lot more subtle than that.
It doesn't take much for executives (and people in general) to delude themselves into thinking they're doing the right thing. Executives have an ethical responsibility to do whatever is in the best interest of the stockholders. Therefore, if it means more money for stockholders for them to screw over customers with a slight possibility of getting a hand slap at some point in the future, then it is their moral responsibility to do so.
So why is it then that the complexity so greatly favors invalid charges rather than creating an equal liklihood of credits or charges?
In fact, over time since customers are far more likely to report an erroneous charge than a credit, the system should come to vastly favor credits.
Perhaps the developers only get bug reports for erroneous credits?