Phone Customers Pay $2B Yearly In Bogus Fees

Hugh Pickens writes writes "CNN reports that a one-year study by the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee shows about $2 billion a year in 'mystery fees' show up on the landline phone bills of Americans. Known as cramming, the extra charges include:long distance service, subscriptions for Internet-related services, access to restricted websites, entertainment services with a 900 area code, collect calls, and club memberships. The Commerce Committee's report says phone companies receive a small fee — often just a dollar or two — for allowing charges from third-party vendors to appear on their bills but due to the large number of customers the charges eventually add up. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan told the panel people are unaware their phone numbers can be charged almost like a credit card and her investigations indicate customers are not even getting services in return. 'My office has yet to see a legitimate third-party charge on a bill,' says Madigan, who added most customers don't detect the charges on their bills. Senator Jay Rockefeller says Congress needs to pass legislation to protect customers from unauthorized third-party charges on their phone bills because the telephone industry has failed to prevent the practice. 'It's pretty obvious at this point that voluntary guidelines aren't solving this problem,' says Rockefeller. 'It's time for us to take a new look at this problem and find a way to solve it once and for all.'"

Comments

How is this not theft

[ComaVN]

How is this not theft, and why aren't people prosecuted for it using existing legislation?

Re:How is this not theft

[Dunbal]

Not only theft - wire fraud.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the customers are just using their phone account as a credit card - these "mystery charges" are essentially just calling 900 numbers.

Re:How is this not theft

[Sponge Bath]

It is not theft because large corporations profit from it. At least that is the best explanation I can derive from observing the US justice system.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not theft because the last two times (2005 and 2010) legislation to stop it came up, key Republicans (like Boehner) were paid off by the phone companies to keep it from coming to the floor.

Now, if it had been PELOSI who quashed the bills during the brief time the Democrats held the Congress, then the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. But they'd rather this sit quietly under the rug and be forgotten about, because it's their "rape the consumer" agenda running as usual.

Re:How is this not theft

[flappinbooger]

I have had some experience with this, and what happens is there will be a phone call made to the customer, may times a business, (the mark, as it were) and they will ask something like "do you not want your phone number listing to not be not removed from the universal listing service?" or some such bogus question, the person says something either yes or no.

The theiving company then makes a record that the mark company has agreed to have the service, since they actually made contact with them, then they do whatever procedure is needed to add the 3rd party charges to the bill.

There is no law that says 3rd party charges are illegal as long as the "customer" actually "agrees" to the charge. Sometimes there are even recordings of the conversation. A fast talking call center employee usually gets a low paid phone answerer at the company, and they don't know about the scams, don't know to say no to anything. Sometimes even saying "no" really means "yes, start charging me" because of how they word the question.

Many times the people paying the bill aren't the owner, and they only look at the final amount.

It is possible to remove the charges by calling the 3rd party company and saying the person who they talked to didn't have authority to make the agreement, and sometimes you can even get a refund of much of the money back to the start of the charges being on the bill.

The key thing to realize is that it IS legal, it is 99.99999% bogus, everyone knows it (except most of the customers, apparently) and they let it continue. I heard that a while back there was a large amount of fines laid out on these 3rd party companies, sort of a gesture by the powers that be. Yet it continues.

Re:How is this not theft

[flappinbooger]

Oh, another thing - if you call the number of the 3rd party charger, and talk with authority, and demand a full refund of all the charges, many times they will give you the refund - even send you a check.

Why? Because a) they make so much freakin money they don't care b) hardly anyone calls c) they don't want to get "in trouble" by not providing "good customer service" because they are trying real hard to stay JUST on the legal side of the line. JUST.

I heard of a company that had been paying for "web hosting service" $39.99 a month, every month, for YEARS. Thousands of dollars flushed down the toilet. They had no website, of course. IIRC they did get a partial refund once it was found out and the call made.

Re:How is this not theft

[ZombieBraintrust]

No. The customers are doing squat. These scammers just go through the phonebook at and add monthly fees to peoples bills. My parents buisness had fight with AT&T for 3 months because of these scams. They would get a fee taken off and the scammers would just add it back on. They had to watch there bill each month and call AT&T every month to get the fees dropped.

Re:How is this not theft

[fast turtle]

and this is exactly why I use an answering machine to screen my calls along with Caller ID. If I don't know the number, I let the machine answer it. If they don't leave a message, then it's not important to them.

Re:How is this not theft

[countertrolling]

Incorrect... If it had been Pelosi, she would be paid off by the phone companies, or otherwise given an offer she can't refuse. It is pointless to vilify an individual person or party. The authority itself is corrupt

Re:How is this not theft

[flappinbooger]

and this is exactly why I use an answering machine to screen my calls along with Caller ID. If I don't know the number, I let the machine answer it. If they don't leave a message, then it's not important to them.

They seem to prey on businesses, where they have to answer the phone, don't look to close at utility bills like the phone, and are present during the day.

This is totally "buyer be ware" but the interesting thing is TFA apparently says they've NEVER SEEN a legit 3rd party charge. Why does this continue if it is 100% abused? Just in case some day someone has a legit 3rd party charge? Can anyone point out a legit 3rd party charge?

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone point out a legit 3rd party charge?

"Text redcross to 12345 to donate $10 to a banana republic".

Re:How is this not theft

[mabhatter654]

It is not theft because large corporations profit from it. At least that is the best explanation I can derive from observing the US justice system.

From a business view it is a "victimless" problem. The Telephone company gets free money.. A $1 of a $3 fee is HUGE!! and they just charge the "service" back (less the fee,of course) when the customer actually protests.

The law that makes Credit Card companies pay attention is the $50 customer liability rule. They legally have to hold the charge immediately. The BIGGER difference is that the Credit Card company PAID somebody that money. So when people put illegal credit charges and run with the money they owe the BANK. (i.e. Big business)

The telephone has very little stake because most of a 900 or Collect call goes right to their pockets anyway... For something they payed like a nickle in actual cost for. There is no financial incentive for the telephone company NOT to simply wait you out to pay up.

The ultimate crime is that a $50 phone/internet bill can accumulate $500+ in charges... At All!!!! Without some kind of special written contract understanding in advance. Especially land lines should have no room for extra charges, and it is a PAIN to get the account "locked" in my experience the phone company unlocks accounts every few months, just out of spite for customers because mine would get "unlocked" through no action of mone, and sure enough there would be an extra charge on there.

Note the article about the Evils of Microtransactions below... And realize Phone Companies INVENTED the idea if a walled garden only they held the billing keys to Lon, long ago.

Re:How is this not theft

[atrain728]

IIRC you can just tell your carrier to not allow third-party fees, which solves the problem.

Re:How is this not theft

[mabhatter654]

Exactly, about the only thing you can do when you get a call like that is stop them mid-sentence, politely say "no thank you", "goodbye" and then HANG UP. dont listen to the whole speech, don't say anything else.. Just "click... Booooo"

They prey on keeping you talking long enough to "trap" you. Don't give them a chance. You don't have to be rude or mean, just hang up.

Re:How is this not theft

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Allow me to offer a better explanation. It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft. We don't call it theft, essentially, for the same reason we don't call my selling you a lemon car theft. It's just chalked up to bad decision-making on your part.

Re:How is this not theft

[fscking_coward_2001]

but the interesting thing is TFA apparently says they've NEVER SEEN a legit 3rd party charge. Why does this continue if it is 100% abused? Just in case some day someone has a legit 3rd party charge? Can anyone point out a legit 3rd party charge?

The quote is from the AG office. First, I'd expect they'd be likely to see many more illegitimate charges than legitimate charges in the complaints the office receives. Second, I'm inclined to doubt that sort of absolute statement, especially from the mouth of a politician.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a network engineer and not a frontline employee but I work with a lot of vendors and companies. I still don't answer my phone if I don't recognize the number. If it is a legitimate call, they WILL leave a message. Even if it is "Hey John, this is Bob from XO, I'm in the lobby at the security desk. I'm here to check on your circuit on the 27th floor, give me a call." 95% of my calls are scams and sales people that claim that we have spoken in the past and they are looking for a follow-up on how they can help improve some aspect of my work life if I promise to hear their sales pitch. The ones that do slip through are usually met with a "hold on" and I hang up.

Re:How is this not theft

[tunapez]

...until some event(end of quarter? system upgrade? full moon?) defaults you back to the profitable mode. Blatant and annoying, yes. I went around with Verizon from '02, to '07(mostly $5 'web access fee', I never texted or surfed via phone and still don't to this day). I have been off contract since '07 and haven't had a single over charge since. Hell, they didn't even charge me a late fee when I was over 10 days late a couple months back.I use bare minimum voice($45) and for my mobile data I use my N800 + hotspots. Imagine how many thousands of dollars of mine they could have had over the last 8 years if they didn't fuck with me out of the gate...

TL;DR: stop giving them your money!

Re:How is this not theft

[JoeMerchant]

My personal solution - cell phones only. One for me, one for my wife, and one for the house - all on a shared minutes family plan. If one dies, we have the house phone as a backup to cover while a replacement comes. And all this landline nonsense is gone.

Due to the fact that you are "paying for minutes" - cell lines get more consumer protection from harassment than landllines. Not perfect, but better.

Re:How is this not theft

[sjames]

It goes well beyond congress. If an individual did it, some prosecutor somewhere would bend and twist whatever law they could to somehow allege that it applies.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if it had been PELOSI who quashed the bills during the brief time the Democrats held the Congress, then the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder.

That begs the question why aren't the Democrats screaming bloody murder about this?

Re:How is this not theft

[Asic Eng]

Seems spot on, really. Banks add bogus charges on debit accounts, as well.

Re:How is this not theft

[praxis]

You do realize that we're talking about a anyone being able to provide a telco a phone number and say $10 please without the number's owner's permission nor awareness. You are right though, it's not theft, it's wire fraud.

Re:How is this not theft

[mean pun]

It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft.

This is about cases where people get billed for "services" that they never agreed to pay for. Go read the article, it is clearly spelled out. Whatever you call it, it is illegal, and there is a victim.

Re:How is this not theft

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh, apparently I didn't. Thanks.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.... that's pretty much exactly what GP said.

GP then went on to say that it would've been vocalized more if it had been Pelosi, as compared to the lack of shouting about it when it's [Republican] that does it.

Now this may still be incorrect, but you've offered absolutely no valid argument to suggest why.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not theft, and why aren't people prosecuted for it using existing legislation?

Because it's a company doing it. "Theft" is something consumers, particularly music lovers, do.

Re:How is this not theft

[ZombieBraintrust]

My parents are not morons. That was the first thing they told them. It is the very first thing everyone asks for their carrier to do. That and demand a refund.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not legal. Fraud in the factum. That word fraud is not kidding around.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a lack of yet another law matter? This is already theft and/or fraud.

Re:How is this not theft

[Kreplock]

Yah, we don't have, need, or want long distance service on our land line but every couple years it magically gets added back on (system upgrade? restore? planetary alignment?) and our bill goes up by several bucks. I wanted to get rid of the land line years ago but it's one of those ancillary issues the wife won't budge on.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means it wouldn't be vigilante justice if a mob were to hunt down the executives of said telephone companies and hang them by the neck until they were really, really unhappy?

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Do what I do. Scream profanities at them and then hang up. They initiated the phone-call, thus as long as you don't utter slander or make threats of bodily harm you're free to say whatever you want to them. Threatening to report them to the FCC, FTC, BBB, or any combination there-of usually helps as well. People in call centers aren't paid enough to deal with beligerent people threatening to get them in trouble with the government, so it is extremely rare to hear back from them a second time.

If everyone did this their list of people to call would be so small as to make it unprofitable to pay people to make the calls in the first place. It's a numbers game, and they have to trick a certain percentage of people in order to cover their expenses. This isn't a problem that can be solved best through legislation, but rather by teaching the general population how to handle these shysters. Never answer a question from a telemarketer with a yes or no, it's too easy for them to put words in your mouth that way. Instead respond with a direct order (in the best authoritative voice you can muster) telling them exactly what you want to happen. "Take whatever you're selling and stuff it up your arse, I have no interest in you, your product, or your company." "Take me off your call list." "Never contact me again." You get the picture.

Re:How is this not theft

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not theft, and why aren't people prosecuted for it using existing legislation?

Because there is no evidence against them. Say your name is John Smith and you live in Detroit. I live in Sacramento and I call the operator and say I would like to bill my long distance call to your number. OK, the operator just has to verify with someone at the number that it's cool. What's my name? My name is John. OK, the operator calls your number and asks whoever answers (your wife, your son, roommate, etc.) if it's cool for John to bill this long distance call to the number. Most people are so unfamiliar with the practice of 3rd party billing that merely hearing a familiar name is enough for them to accept the charges. And the operator puts my call through, charges your phone number, and the only evidence is some vague memories about someone named John trying to call a specific number.

That's All?

[longbot]

Does this seem lower than expected to anyone else, or is that just my own experience?

Re:That's All?

[w_dragon]

I was kinda thinking that half of that was probably me alone. I should ask them to give it back.

Re:That's All?

[hairyfeet]

What really pisses me off about this shit is it is preying on those weakest and least likely to understand they are getting ripped off...old folks. It is the grandma and grandpa out there with landlines, the little old lady that can't read her bill with her coke bottle glasses anyway whom they are screwing over. It is disgusting.

Between this and the truly obscene profiteering that we saw in the earlier article on providing broadband to rural areas (which are also full of the poor and the elderly) it just shows me what I've known for quite awhile, this system is totally corrupted to its very core. if you or I tried this we would be in jail for wire fraud so fast it would make our heads swim, but if supermegacorp who greases the right palms rips off people left and right? hell they'll get a tax break!

it is truly damned sad IMHO that old observation is even more true today, rip off $500 and go to prison, rip off 500 million? Have dinner at the White House.

Re:That's All?

[sycorob]

What really pisses me off about this shit is it is preying on those weakest and least likely to understand they are getting ripped off...old folks. It is the grandma and grandpa out there with landlines, the little old lady that can't read her bill with her coke bottle glasses anyway whom they are screwing over.

Yup. Like the woman who paid $10/month for DECADES for one of those old black rotary phones? http://www.mergermonster.com/?m=2&s=111&id=106

Re:That's All?

[hairyfeet]

And did you read that shit? They charge that little old lady more than $14,000 for charges on an old rotary phone and then MAKE HER GIVE IT BACK to end the contract! Well fuck you AT&T you heartless greedy bastards! I wouldn't piss on your CEO if he was on fire!

The sad part is thanks to bribery the T-Mobile deal WILL go through and then that just leaves who... Verizon? That's it? All that is left to bring back the Ma Bell monopoly? I wonder how long it will take them to merge with Verizon so that can go back to supermega monopoly. We probably shouldn't be surprised though, after BOTH the dems and the reps happily gutted the rules barring one corp from owning all the outlets in an area, aka the "Clearchannel clause" regulation of supermegacorps consists of helping said corps keep new entrants from gaining a toehold. Hell we might as well just put a bag in front of each congress critters desk to drop off the checks and change the anthem to "Mighty Mighty Dollar bill" and be done with it.

You can stop them

[Lumpy]

You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well. If I want to talk to Gunther in Germany, I'll use Skype or a calling card that is massively cheaper.

Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.

Re:You can stop them

[Dunbal]

Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.

What, and miss out on $2B a year? Phone companies (like many other companies) know that many people are just too damned lazy to go over their bill every month. And of those who do check, there's a percentage who are too lazy to actually do anything about it. While it is absolutely wrong for them to do this, when did ethics ever win against profit?

Re:You can stop them

[Anrego]

Same reason they don't prevent you from going over data caps. They _could_ just cut you off.. or send a notice, or warning, or something.. but why would it be in their interest to do so.

This probably requires legislation to happen.

Re:You can stop them

[Lumpy]

It's based on the "honestly" of the company. and people need to have the balls to call them out. People need to publicall call companies DISHONEST when they do things like that.

Re:You can stop them

[Anrego]

People need to publicall call companies DISHONEST when they do things like that.

They do. All the time!

Problem is it changes nothing. A few lucky people can live without a phone (or a credit card, or internet, or whatever competition-limited utility you want to talk about) but most have little choice but to bend over and take it.

The president of my ISP could come to my house and piss on my shoes .. and I'd probably keep my subscription. They are the only provider .. and I kinda need internet to live.

Re:You can stop them

[Rob the Bold]

You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well. If I want to talk to Gunther in Germany, I'll use Skype or a calling card that is massively cheaper.

Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.

You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well.

What he said.

To which I would add: tell your phone company that you won't pay any bogus 3rd party charges currently (or ever appearing) on the bill. You're happy to pay their part, but the check won't include the stuff that was crammed on. They'll threaten you that your phone could get cut off, but they won't really do it. Why would they give up $50 bucks a month just to collect 3 dollars for some other guy?

I worked for a while with a 3rd party collect call operator. The company had billing agreements with lots of local carriers. But when push came to shove, the carriers would tell us to go do our own dirty work collecting from the unwilling. They wouldn't go the mat for us even for legitimate charges that the customer disputed. [Don't worry, all you contracts-are-sacred guys, our little company was free to send its own bill in that case -- having the telco collect it was just a convenience, not the exclusive means of collecting the debt.]

NB The above technique won't work if it's the telco itself that crammed the charges on -- or if they've got a big enough stake in it. If it's their money the will come after it.

Re:You can stop them

[DoofusOfDeath]

Agreed. They need their corporations disolved for having violated their charters.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded or something?

Re:You can stop them

[trum4n]

At lest kick him in the nuts while he's there!

Re:You can stop them

[Dunbal]

Every year slashdot moves a little closer to the trailer park.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they give up $50 bucks a month just to collect 3 dollars for some other guy?

The same reason the IRS will send in the SWAP when you don't pay $0.50 from your 10'000$ taxes: Principles. If they accept it on one guy, a million more will do it. If they start to let you differenciate between different types of money-you-owe-them, they'll open pandora's box, and they know it!

Re:You can stop them

[w_dragon]

Thing is, if it's just a buck or two per month it's really not worth my time to wait on hold for an hour to get it fixed. Especially since I'll have to wait, get escalated, wait again, get denied and ask for a supervisor, wait again, and then maybe get my $2 back. I can find better ways to get that money in that time.

Re:You can stop them

[Amouth]

and when the charge is a single line item on a ~80 page phone bill even people who do review them miss them.. At work i had to put together a cheat sheet/lesson plan so that the book keeper could review our bill for correct charges. (what to look for where)..

it's crazy that they get away with this crap - but hey the government lets them because they pay the people who are in office.

its not a bribe - its business as usual.

Re:You can stop them

[Amouth]

when you have to have training to properly read your bill - there is a problem, and it isn't always the users in this case.

phone companies go out of their way to make the bill hard to read and understand, and to make bogus things look legit (at least in my experience)

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

You CAN stop them! Get rid of your landline. I got so tired of finding and contesting extraneous charges on my landline bill that I just had it cancelled. I now have only a cell. In fact, my son and I both have a cell on a family plan for monthly charges less than what the landline cost.

BTW, I get a monthly letter from the phone company telling me that "my number is still available". Go figure!

Re:You can stop them

[ixidor]

i hop you mean SWAT! if they send you their swap file .. hmmmm

Re:You can stop them

[Entrope]

I call shenanigans. How many people get 80-page bills for their (home) land lines? My bill for a combined voice/data/television package (from the incumbent phone carrier) is about five pages long each month, and a lot of that is legally-required boilerplate notices and disclaimers. Half of the rest is formatting to make it easier to follow the content.

Re:You can stop them

[BStroms]

I've never had a land line. The only reason I can see to keep them is wanting to hang on to a number everyone knows. Even then it's probably worth biting the bullet and getting rid of it. If you have a family and want a shared line that's always on, it's probably cheaper to add another number to your cell phone plan and just have a cell phone that stays at home 24/7.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

I call shenanigans. How many people get 80-page bills for their (home) land lines? My bill for a combined voice/data/television package (from the incumbent phone carrier) is about five pages long each month, and a lot of that is legally-required boilerplate notices and disclaimers. Half of the rest is formatting to make it harder to follow the content.

FTFY

Re:You can stop them

[stephathome]

I assume it's the same as when I worked for the phone company, more than 10 years ago, but the other hard part for a lot of customers was understanding that they had to call the company that put the charge on the bill to cancel it most times. Regular customer service phone company employees couldn't do it, although removing the charges wasn't a big deal so long as the dollar amount wasn't huge. It was amazing how long some of these charges could be put on before someone caught on, and then expected all of them to be removed, months later.

It really pays to review your bills every month. Very simple to do, and then you know what it should look like.

Re:You can stop them

[Amouth]

you must not get detailed call logs - i get one line item per call both in and out..

make note that this problem does not apply to just "land lines" it applies to all phones .. they can do direct bills to a cell phone just as easy. (and yes my land line gets detailed call history in the bill.. it's amazing how many call/hangups there are during the day, and that bill is around 10 pages. (5 pages front and back)

by no means do they try to make it or format it to be easy to read for the average person.

Re:You can stop them

[Amouth]

It really pays to review your bills every month. Very simple to do, and then you know what it should look like.

i agree it does pay off - but only because they love to try to pull fast ones on their customers

it is only simple to do After you have learned what all the parts of the bill mean - being able to identify and understand the different rate codes and calling codes and billing codes - which are not explained on the bill (yes there is a legend.. normally it is a 1-2 letter code that is then translated to an acronym which the average person doesn't know.)

yes once you have it cleaned up you can basically do an diff to see that you are in the right ball park.. but even that they try to swam you will enough data that the average person will not notice a single line item change.. or that it is too much effort.

all this falls back on them making a lot of money by making it hard for customers to understand what is going on.

Re:You can stop them

[jackbird]

How about 100% uptime, 911 service, no dropped calls, no batteries, massively better sound quality, the ability to use a fax machine, and drastically lower monthly charges?

Re:You can stop them

[hairyfeet]

So you say "You sir are a bunch of liars and thieves!" and then hand them your money and this proves....what exactly? Do you think you'll make their CEO cry as they cash your check?

Thanks to the wonders of unrestrained bribery most of us have NO choice when it comes to services like this, and how many could live without their phone? What if a relative is hurt and you are the next of kin listed? you gonna say "well i'm sorry I wasn't there to approve that surgery but I had to show da man who's boss!"?

My cable bill seems to have a permanent case of the price creeps but you know what? Not a damned thing I can do about it. You can go complain ALL you want, they'll be happy to tell you that you are free to go back to dialup. In my area it is cable or DSL that is SUPPOSED to be 3Mbps but in reality when the moon is full you MAYBE get 600Kbps, and my customers on it have shown me it is literally faster to drive to my shop to download a driver, even if it is 25 miles to my place from theirs, than it is to wait on the DSL when it is topping out at less than 100Kbps.

My cableco could change their bill to a four page color foldout of Goatse with red letters underneath that says 'This is what we think of you bitch!" and I'd have NO choice but to take it. I have family and friends scattered to the four winds and it is kinda hard to fix computers if I can't even download a driver.

So I don't see how your saying "You sir are a LIAR!" to them when you'll still have to cut the liar a check really helps. Welcome to the capitalist system, works great, huh?

Re:You can stop them

[RollingThunder]

Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.

You may think that, but the average consumer would find that enraging.

The same laziness that leads people to not check their bills, causes people to get irate when they have to jump through extra hoops to get something activated.

Re:You can stop them

[Danse]

How about 100% uptime, 911 service, no dropped calls, no batteries, massively better sound quality, the ability to use a fax machine, and drastically lower monthly charges?

Any major cell network will have 911 service, nearly 100% uptime (and even landlines don't have 100%), and few or no dropped calls if you get one that has good coverage in your area, which is kind of an obvious choice. Yeah, the sound quality might not be as good, but I'm not really using it to listen to the awesome hold music, and it's easily clear enough to understand the other person without any trouble. Couldn't care less about faxes. They can email me and I can receive it on my phone.

As for the charges, you'll pay more for mobile, but then you can answer your phone anywhere. If you primarily stay at home, don't get many calls, or don't care about being able to talk to people at the time they call rather than returning the call later, then yeah, stick with landline.

Re:You can stop them

[mabhatter654]

But realize that the phone company gets a large percentage as fees to the "service" company right back in their pocket. So they get the money up front when you pay your bill, hold it from the service provider until past time to dispute, and get "handling" fees for the trouble.. Half the "fraudulent charge" is going to the phone company... Even if you dispute the charge because they just take the fee from the other schmucks that didnt contest the charge.

This is like getting charged for INCOMING texts and the phone company doing nothing about spammers.

Re:You can stop them

[frank_adrian314159]

Just nationalize them. The infrastructure is too important to be left to for-profit organizations. And for those of you who ask, "Well, do you want the [implied evil] guvmint running them?" Not really, but at least I have a modicum of control over that entity. I have none over the corporation. And, before you ask, "What are you, a socialist?" I didn't used to be, but the growing scourge of corpratism has sort of forced me into it.

Re:You can stop them

[ArsonSmith]

Either people are paying these prices because there is a gun pointed to their head, or because they feel the phone service is worth the price, even with the additional buck or two in bogus charges. Accepting that it's not the first option as that is only being tried in a large scale with the new healthcare plan, the second option shows that both sides profit from the transaction. The customer in getting a wanted service, the provider in getting some cash.

Re:You can stop them

[JoeMerchant]

Thing is, if it's just a buck or two per month it's really not worth my time to wait on hold for an hour to get it fixed. Especially since I'll have to wait, get escalated, wait again, get denied and ask for a supervisor, wait again, and then maybe get my $2 back. I can find better ways to get that money in that time.

Very true - and easier still to tell them to take their whole service and shove it... Landline phone service needs to go the way of Blockbuster and travel agencies. It already has, in my house.

Re:You can stop them

[JoeMerchant]

Thanks to the (now at least 5 year old) number portability act, if you jump through sufficient hoops, you can get your landline number transferred to a wireless carrier of your choice. We did it, first to Vonage, then to Verizon wireless.

Re:You can stop them

[w_dragon]

In my experience it's the cell phone that racks up mystery charges more than the land line.

Re:You can stop them

[KarrdeSW]

At lest kick him in the nuts while he's there!

There's a $40 fee for that service.

Re:You can stop them

[Technician]

If you call overseas often, one of the SIP phones is a good deal. For less than $15 (20 with taxes and E911 charge) unlimited calls to all of US and Canada in a base package or including ~35 other countries is possible. In plan is free regardless of destination. SIP to SIP is free like Skype to Skype. If you are really cheap, pick up a free SIP account from one of the free SIP account providers such as SIPgate, IPPI, IPTel, then pick up a free inward phone number from IPKall. This is $60 a year cheaper then Skype with a Skype-in number at $60 per year or $20/quarter. WIth an unlocked SIP analog phone adaptor, it will ring a POTS phone on your desk. No computer needs left on. Several of the free SIP providers include free voicemail as part of the package.

With a IPKall number, you can send your Google Voice number to it to ring your free phone and not use any cell minutes.

Unfortunately many of the recycled IPKall numbers were used to create overseas Google Voice accounts so they can't be used to forward your Google Voice as it is "Already Registered to two Google Voice Accounts". Keep trying until you get a number not already used. I'm hoping GV will be able to kick off the invalid users by requiring them to re-authenticate their number. This will free up the throw away numbers for the current owner to use.

Re:You can stop them

[jasomill]

Should gas stations should be allowed to charge customers for car washes they aren't aware of, since they don't specifically request otherwise? Should restaurants be allowed to tack on additional "prepaid" menu items that are only actually served by special request? Should Best Buy be allowed to tack on an extended warranty to one out of five purchases automatically, without asking?

This isn't about "freedom of choice," it's about fraudulent charges — and if telecommunications companies knowingly and willingly permit and profit from them, they should be prosecuted.

So you're right, we probably don't need legislation that isn't already on the books; we just need more effective enforcement of the laws we have.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was 'I didn't used to be a socialist, but then our government gave handouts to big business.' :D

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks, did this.

Re:You can stop them

[TheLink]

Yeah, if the corporations are privatizing the profits but socializing their losses, you might as well have the Government take them over.

At least the Gov would have to _pretend_ to follow the constitution and stuff like the FOIA.

The Corporations don't.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it would probably also deal a huge blow to economic development, since it means starting a business is much riskier financially. Pick your poison, I guess.

Why can't there be a balance? Is it really that hard to create a system where people can be protected from financial liability, thus making it less risky to start a business, but are still held accountable for their actions and decisions while doing business?

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

At lest kick him in the nuts while he's there!

There's a $40 fee for that service.

It'd be worth it

Re:You can stop them

[black soap]

Did they charge you a recurring fee for the service of simplifying your bill by blocking those other services?

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an experience very similar a few months back. Ex wife signed up for some garbage, gave my number, and the charges showed up on my bill. Fixing it was about a half hour of getting customer service on the line (Centurylink) and the end result was blocking all 3rd party charges and all fee charges in general (so, no 900 numbers for instance).

I only say this to add one thing: The people at customer service were *AWESOME*. She actually got on the line with the third party company and (while I listened) demanded that they refund the money that had went out the previous month that I had missed. This lady really went to bat for me, and even went so far as to apply some discounts to my account to offset the time I had to wait online (something like ~$40 over a year).

I know, incoming mod downs for actually being happy with customer support, but damn. I see so many of these replies where everyone claims these people are the scum of the Earth. Fact is, the last few months every customer support person I've had to deal with (and it's been a few: Centurylink, DirecTV, AT&T) have gone above and beyond to make sure I was happy when I got off the call. Try it sometime instead of sitting around bitching about it on the internet.

Re:You can stop them

[holmedog]

I had an experience very similar a few months back. Ex wife signed up for some garbage, gave my number, and the charges showed up on my bill. Fixing it was about a half hour of getting customer service on the line (Centurylink) and the end result was blocking all 3rd party charges and all fee charges in general (so, no 900 numbers for instance).

I only say this to add one thing: The people at customer service were *AWESOME*. She actually got on the line with the third party company and (while I listened) demanded that they refund the money that had went out the previous month that I had missed. This lady really went to bat for me, and even went so far as to apply some discounts to my account to offset the time I had to wait online (something like ~$40 over a year).

I know, incoming mod downs for actually being happy with customer support, but damn. I see so many of these replies where everyone claims these people are the scum of the Earth. Fact is, the last few months every customer support person I've had to deal with (and it's been a few: Centurylink, DirecTV, AT&T) have gone above and beyond to make sure I was happy when I got off the call. Try it sometime instead of sitting around bitching about it on the internet.

Bah, posted ANON.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but what is the cost of 2 bucks a month, every month, for the entire time you have you phone line? Say you live in a house for 10 years, with the same phone company the whole time. 2 bucks a month is 24 bucks a year, which works out to $240 over those 10 years. (assuming that they are only scamming you 2 bucks a month - 10 bucks a month is $1200 over those same ten years) It may not be huge, but it is thousands of dollars over the course of your life.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T used to do just that. If you hit 5Gig on the 9th day of the billing cycle, you'd be cut off. I don't know if this is still true, but it definitely was in the last year.

Re:You can stop them

[w_dragon]

Very true, but if I have to call every month it's also a whole lot of hours of my life that I could be doing anything other than talking to a CSR that barely speaks English and is just trying to get rid of me as quickly as possible without giving me anything. A few grand over my life time really isn't all that significant to me.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, totally not the same thing. The IRS is basically the collection agency for all other government agencies. Verizon however is not a collection agency for Scummy Company XYZ.

Re:You can stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

I did that phone call cuz it costs them tons more than it costs me. They weren't 3rd party charges, just bogus phone co ones. After doing that twice, they never overcharged me again.

We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[erroneus]

Every time I turn around it seems like there's a new way to game the easy systems in place for every-day-modern-life. The credit game has no security -- it relies of trusting lots and lots of strangers with "secret numbers" and bits of information that, when used, is "you." The phone bills have no security either. And all the while, we see fraud over and over and over again with almost no punishment or pursuit of the perpetrators while the enablers of all of this persist in using the system because the benefits them are apparently outweighing the problems or them... not the problems for the customers, but for them... they don't care about the customers.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[Anrego]

There are two critical problems at work here in my opinion:

The first is that "free market will decide" tends not to work on stuff with huge barriers for entry and almost universally required. A few lucky people can say "screw credit cards, I'm only going to use cash" or can live without a phone ... but most don't have the option. They have to pick one provider from the available options, all of which mostly offer the same "bend over" treatment. You need legislation for this kind of stuff.

The next is that a huge number of users prefer convenience over all else. Personally I think it should be an absolute hassle to use my credit card. It should involve one time passwords, independent transaction authorization, various identity checks, passwords, etc. Most users would balk at this however... they want to hand their plastic over and be on with their day.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[drooling-dog]

If the financial services industry taught us anything, it's that fraud is perfectly legal (and even rewarded) if it's large enough...

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[tepples]

"free market will decide" tends not to work on stuff with huge barriers for entry and almost universally required. [...] You need legislation for this kind of stuff.

Unless it was legislation that created the "huge barriers for entry" in the first place.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[jollyreaper]

There are two critical problems at work here in my opinion:

The first is that "free market will decide" tends not to work on stuff with huge barriers for entry and almost universally required. A few lucky people can say "screw credit cards, I'm only going to use cash" or can live without a phone ... but most don't have the option. They have to pick one provider from the available options, all of which mostly offer the same "bend over" treatment. You need legislation for this kind of stuff.

I'm completely for letting the Free Market decide. I happen to differ from my Libertarian friends in what I mean when I say that.

My idea of the Free Market is more like the Running Man, except instead of convicts being hunted down it'll be CEO's from corporations who have committed crimes against the nation. Oil spills, false charges, medicare fraud, unsafe working conditions, covering up drug failures, Wall Street banksters ruining the economy... See, they get away with this shit because there aren't consequences. The motto of the Free Market show is "There are consequences."

So the way it works is CEO's who have been accused of crimes against the nation are put on trial and the charges are read out. A lottery of their victims is selected and they form a posse known as the Free Market, hence the name of the show. Once their crimes have been listed and a defense made, the Free Market is let to decide what should happen to them. It should usually involve giving the CEO a five minute head start and hunting them from side-car motorcycles. The sidecar will be turned into a standing platform like a chariot. Each team will comprise a rider and hunter. The hunter will be equipped with blunt spears so it will take an exceptionally long time to bring the CEO to ground. As to what happens after the CEO is captured, it will be left up to the Free Market to decide.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[del_diablo]

That is irrelevant to the point. Prove that there is no barrier or entry in... lets say CPUs, and we can talk.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, we're talking about a utility here...a massively regulated industry with no competition to keep phone vendors honest. This is not a failing of free markets...because this is not a free market.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I owe you $10,000, then I have a big problem.

If I owe you $10,000,000,000, then you have an even bigger problem.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[Rich0]

No need for huge hurdles for credit card use. There are simple solutions:

1. Consumer not liable for charges they did not authorize, and consumer cannot waive this right. Authorize is defined by the consumer (the human being) agreeing to the charge, not to the PIN getting sent to the bank or whatever. Liability remains with the bank even if the problem was caused elsewhere (the bank can go after them).

2. Credit reporting agencies are liable for errors contained in their reports. Errors must be removed, and not merely have a letter from the consumer appended to. Negative credit comments of any kind must be backed by an award of judgement by a court. Liability remains with the reporting agency even if the problem was caused elsewhere (they can recover their loss).

The purpose of #1 and #2 is to give the big companies incentive to get it right, and liability if they don't, while getting rid of finger-pointing.

3. Banks and credit-reporting-agencies must pay the consumer a fee any time a fraudulent charge is removed. This is to compensate the consumer for the hassle. I'd suggest something around $500, adjusted for inflation. Now they have incentive to get it right the first time.

After that I'd let the market sort it out. Banks really should just give out smartcards with a PIN keypad and display, and then use digital signatures on all transactions, with no trust for the hardware the card interfaces with (the credentials and key never leave the card).

Cramming wouldn't bother me much at all if I got $500 every time I reported a mistake. I suspect the phone companies would be a LOT more stringent about accepting charges in the first place.

Re:We need a law to make fraud illegal?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770

Bogus charges

[Bolen]

I had a weird charge for "Auctions eBay" show up out of the blue on my wireless bill. I've never used my phone for anything like that. Fortunately, I was able to have that removed with a simple call to my provider. Better still would be if it never happened.

If you or your parents have a land-line from AT&T, I suggest you check their bill. "Inside wiring" is another mostly useless charge. How often does wiring go bad?

Re:Bogus charges

[NJRoadfan]

Heck, how many are still paying a rental fee for a handset from the Ma Bell days?

Re:Bogus charges

[stephathome]

It definitely does sometimes, but not so much that I'd get "inside wiring" personally, and I worked for the phone company for about a year more than 10 years ago. Got people calling to get that added to their bill often enough because they had just reported a problem that might involve their inside wiring. Some people would push it pretty hard. A few years after I left that job, had a case where my phone line was crossed with someone else's, and they tried to see me on inside wiring for that one. It was quite obviously an outside issue, so of course I had no interest in it.

Re:Bogus charges

[bzipitidoo]

No rental fee for the phone, but AT&T still dings us $0.18 every month for touch tone.

Personally, I do not like any sort of wireless. Been looking at VoIP, but Internet is just not as reliable. So I hang on to the land line.

Re:Bogus charges

[equivocal]

This summer ATT Long Distance decided to impose minimum charges. So, anyone NOT insane enough to pay $0.39/minute gets to pay $2 anyway. And it's not $2, it's $4.50 after the below the line fees they now add. I figure that $2 is their internal usury cost for collecting the fees, which makes sure that those fees remain pure profit. Blatant greed.

Happened to My Parents

[Dog-Cow]

This happened to my parents for several months with AT&T. Every month, my dad would have to call AT&T and have them remove the bogus charges. They insisted that it was impossible to block these charges. My response to my parents was that they should drop AT&T and get a VoIP line. We switched to a Comcast business account for cable and to voipo for phone service. Even with the business line, my parents were paying about $50 less per month, and have had zero billing issues.

(I've since left the house, so they downgraded to a residential account. They are saving even more now.)

Problem solved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no phone bill anymore. They get nothing.

Fuck the phone companies. Can you get anymore scummy than them?

Re:Problem solved.

[countertrolling]

Can you get anymore scummy than them?

ja, ja

This is at the very least, fraud. More like theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations have person for various legal reasons (and none of them good imho) - so charge these "persons" with fraud and theft. Talk about double standards.
I really don't understand why you U.S. Citizens put up with the crap that you do. It boggles my mind.
Good luck with the Corporate Future guys, you need some serious changes or you are just screwed, plain and simple.

Landlines only?

[Aladrin]

What about mobiles?

My dad was hit with a bunch (3-4) of $10/mo charges for 'flirting tips' and other garbage. He has -no- idea how he got on them. We didn't catch them quickly, and T-Mobile would only refund the last 3-4 months worth. I think he got on them by putting his phone number into sites online. Specifically, online dating sites. (But possibly porn. Why did you have to tell me that, dad?)

We ended up blocking all SMS on his phone to prevent it from happening again. At least, we think that will prevent it.

Re:Landlines only?

[Amouth]

just wait.. next time they send a usage policy and/or terms of usage update to you - call back you will find that your "blocks" have been removed and you will need to re add them.

at least that is what AT&T does.. and considering they are buying T-Mobile i would expect the same to be happening.

Re:Landlines only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, 'pay as you go' is totally the way to do things. Screw this overage charges, extra stuff, etc, etc, monthly bill, late charges, etc.

I generally put $15 to $20 on the phone. It lasts about a month, which it technically expires in. If I put $100, that would last a year before expiring. I've been tempted to do that, but... meh. I run out, I can call the *123 or whatever and add more from my credit card.

Something crazy happens? Absolute, 100% worst case scenario... I'm out $20.

How are they mysterious and undetected??

[wvmarle]

OK disclaimer first: I'm not American.

So I may be getting this totally wrong.

First of all: why are this "mystery" charges?

If you make an international call, you know you're doing it, and you know you'll be billed for it.

If you receive a collect call, you're given the option to accept or refuse it (this is something I've never used myself; my sister used it a few times calling my parents from abroad where she had to use public phones), and I basically can not imagine this service to be used much.

If they charge you for Internet or club memberships you most likely subscribed to it - otherwise it's of course a fraud. And in any case you should be able to unsubscribe too.

So I don't understand how any of these charges are "mysterious" or even "illegitimate".

Secondly: what about this undetected part? How can this can go undetected on such a grand scale? Do people not get a specified phone bill, listing all charges separately? Do they not actually look at their phone bill to know what they're paying for before writing that cheque?

Unless things work much different in the USA than in (the rest of) the developed world this whole story doesn't sound very believable to me. It just raises too many questions.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[cvtan]

In my case, a $12.95 monthly charge just showed up on my phone bill (land line). There are so many odd items on the bill, it's hard to notice another one. The charge was from a place called CompuFix who I had never contacted and never heard of. Phone companies are required by law to allow third party charges even if they are bogus. They make money on things like this so they have no incentive to stop it. They would have continued to charge us $12.95 per month for services never received. We had to call the phone company and block all these kinds of charges. Of course, there is a charge for that...

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Bolen]

You don't know if you are making an international call if it is forwarded from a local/USA call. This happens all the time -- legitimately -- when calling an "800" number (US intra-country long distance) gets routed to a call center in India.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Attila Dimedici]

Because most people don't even look at the itemized portion of their bill, they just pay it. I have on a few occasions purchased a service online using my phone bill (it has been a few years, so I don't remember what). I did it because I did not have a credit card at the time. I have, also, had a few "mystery" charges turn up. When I called the telephone company and challenged them,they immediately took them off of my bill (and told me they would flag that vendor for abuse of the system). Of course, it does not help that there are several routine charges on the telephone bill that are hard to decipher. These are government mandated charges, or taxes, that appear on the bill in a manner that is hard to decipher because the law implementing them requires that (the legislators don't want people to realize that it's thier fault those charges are there).

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Anonymous Coward]

US landlines aren't a simple billing exercise. First you need a local carrier, this is say $30/month for "free local calls". Then you need a national carriers (could be the same company), this requires a monthly subscription too. Then you need, yes, you guessed it, an international carrier. There's a default to pick up the national and internationals, but the rates can be very high. Miss dial and that unconnected call can cost $4. Once you navigate this setup you get banged with umpteen levels of taxes and fees, which never seem to be the same month to month.

Things may have improved over the last few years, we gave up with land lines and use vonage's $25/month service (uses internet for connections but acts as as real phone system). This settled our national and international costs (free) for a while, but then the patent mess started and the FCC decided to stick its oar in. We now pay about $34/month for the $25/month service thanks to taxes and fees. Which is a hell of a lot better than regular phone companies (for us).

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[jank1887]

FTFA:
"When third-party vendors are contacted they claim the charges were authorized by customers and they often say they have audio recordings of the customer giving the OK, Madigan said...However, when her office obtained audio recordings, the voices turned out not to belong to the consumers who were billed, she said. "
"Eppley said she called the third-party company and was told Eppley's company had OK'd the charges and there was an audio recording to back that up. Eppley asked to hear it but the company never provided the audio recording."

sounds like straight out fraud. When you're only stealing $5, but do it a million times, it's easy to avoid legal ramifications as people see you as a nuisance, but not worth legal hassle.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Anonymous Coward]

A local church & school allowed me to work with their large phone bill to see if they could lower it.

There were 2 or 3 crammed charges from companies that setup supposed websites for them, unsolicited and unwanted. I think they used some publicly available information to say that a certain invividual had approved it, when they had not done that.

I was able to get those charges removed and get a credit for some of the past charges. In this case, Verizon was very helpful in dealing with this

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[jank1887]

Most people don't look at their bills at all. Why? Paperless billing. My bank, credit card company, utility company, mobile, internet, TV and phone company all want me to switch to paperless billing. A few credit cards actually gave you a credit for going paperless. I know from personal experience that when I get the email notice of a new statement, I peek at the dollar value. if it looks about right I rarely click through to the actual statement. I guarantee you a lot of people don't even go this far.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point, phone companies started to think of themselves as payment processors. As far as business ideas go, that was a relatively sane one: The phone companies already have billing departments which are in regular contact with almost every household, they already itemize many small charges, they have established collection procedures, etc.

So they offered to process payments for other services than just establishing connections. At first, they used special numbers for that and the service and fee was still attached to a phone call, but nowadays you can basically use the phone company like a credit card company. It's still mostly used for phone-related "services", but since neither you nor the phone company can tie the charges to a number of call minutes, there's very little control over which charges are justified and which are simply bogus.

If you've ever heard of ring tone subscriptions, that is a very prominent example of charges bordering on fraud.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there is a charge for that...

Um, no there isn't. They aren't allowed to charge you for that.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[wvmarle]

In that case you are making a local or 800-number call... you're not making an IDD call... so you should not get any of those charges on your bill. So if you see international charges and you never made an international call (the few that call internationally regularly will know they do), it's a fraudulent charge. And those calls to India are probably routed over the Internet nowadays, and not over telephone lines.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[BZ]

1) This whole article is in fact about the fact that it's a fraud. That's what makes them "mysterious" and "illegitimate": they're bills for services that were never provided.

2) A typical US phone bill that does not have any of these charges on it (so just a normal bill) has a dozen or more line items with names designed to be as obscure as possible. Not only that, but in many cases these change from month to month (both the total bill amount and the exact itemization). As a result, it's actually easy to miss a $1 charge that shouldn't be there unless you're _very_ carefully reading the bill every month. Which most people don't.

3) For reasons that are beyond me, many people have their phone bills set up to auto-pay (basically have the phone company just withdraw the money from the user's bank account). So in that case there is no cheque being written. The payment just happens; you get sent a bill (or an e-mail that you can look at the bill online, if the phone company's incessant attempts to get you to go paperless succeeded).

So the deck is stacked against people noticing the problem. If they _do_ notice it, they have to decide whether they want to spend several hours on the phone trying to get rid of the charge or just pay it and move on. I bet in many cases people do the latter.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[ledow]

In a country that lets telcos CHARGE the receiver for receiving every SMS (solicited or not), anything's possible. Hell, sometimes they charge the person for receiving a phone call as well, even if it's an ordinary, domestic phone call and they never asked to be rung.

The US, collectively, are a bunch of people who do what corporations tell them to.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[wvmarle]

In my case, a $12.95 monthly charge just showed up on my phone bill (land line). There are so many odd items on the bill, it's hard to notice another one.

That amount is more than I pay for my two business fixed lines. Yes that's together. So that's a pretty big sum for a phone bill to appear.

Secondly, "so many odd charges"... you go through the bill once, and tick what you don't know what it is. And make a call to the phone company for explanation. That's what I do with my credit card bill. It's not that hard, it just requires you to care about your money. If you let such sums just stand, sorry to say, but you obviously don't care enough.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Attila Dimedici]

Even with itemized paper bills, many people don't look at what they are being billed for. Of course, if you don't look at the itemized portion of the bill, don't complain when mystery charges turn up. Even without anyone doing anything evil, incorrect charges will occasionally turn up because someone made a data entry error.
I understand why you do what you do. I know approximately what each of my bills should be and if it is close to that I just glance over the itemized portion to make sure there isn't some new category of charge. I had one recurring charge on a cell phone bill get by for two or three months because it was less than two dollars because of that. Then my wife sent an unusual amount of text messages one month and my bill was high, so I looked at the details. The bill was high for legitmate reasons, but I caught the invalid charge (now I look at my cell phone bill a little closer each month).

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to "break out" of an 800-number call and have the rest of the call charged at a different rate (for example, when the service center offers to connect you instead of just giving you a number and having you dial another call). This does require the explicit consent of the caller though, so the usual "800 call is routed to a foreign country because brown people work for less" construction can not generate charges legally.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Amouth]

In my case, a $12.95 monthly charge just showed up on my phone bill (land line). There are so many odd items on the bill, it's hard to notice another one.

That amount is more than I pay for my two business fixed lines. Yes that's together. So that's a pretty big sum for a phone bill to appear.

Secondly, "so many odd charges"... you go through the bill once, and tick what you don't know what it is. And make a call to the phone company for explanation. That's what I do with my credit card bill. It's not that hard, it just requires you to care about your money. If you let such sums just stand, sorry to say, but you obviously don't care enough.

sorry i don't know where you live - but around here the cheapest fixed POTS line is 31$ a month (local calling only).. and for something that is a frame based is >300$ a month for the local loop, cheapest monthly cell phone is ~35$ a month.. the bill in front of me is >80 pages long in a 5x8.5 size with ~8pt font on it.. it takes me ~2h to review that bill and i fully understand it.

flip over to your grandmother with her local loop line and long distance - maybe even dsl on that one bill it is still ~10 pages long and still in that 8pt font size (even though there is no need for it)

the telco's go out of their way to make the bills hard to understand. and in this confusion it allows them to exploit people for more money.

and it reallllllllllllly didn't help that the supreme court agreed that by agreeing to service you agree to waive your rights and settle any disputes through their own arbitration.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[cvtan]

Sorry, there is a fee for blocking numbers.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[cvtan]

I obviously don't, but luckily my wife the accountant does care. The bogus charge was caught the first time it appeared. After being with this phone company for 40 years, you tend not to look at the bill too closely (I least I don't). Now they will get the evil eye every month.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[I'm not really here]

On top of paperless billing is "automatic payments" for your "convenience" (it's really for their convenience). So, mystery charges are added to a bill, you get an email with your itemized bill telling you "thank you for your payment" and good luck trying to get the company to refund that money.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[xaxa]

Here is a British landline phone + ADSL bill (though the ADSL isn't explicitly mentioned, it's part of the "Max Unlimited Plus Free Weekend Part II" package). It's complete, apart from the page containing two lines saying payment will be taken from my account automatically on a particular day unless I tell them not to, before some other day. The whole thing was four sides of A4.

It's a little old, as I don't have a phone line any more. We didn't use the phone much, so the call detail isn't very long, but it's still clear what each call is.
Usually, I could look at the summary by call type, see that nothing was over £1, and ignore the rest.

(I kept that one because of the £11 call to New Zealand. Up to 60 minute calls were free to NZ (and many other countries), but someone else in the student house made a 64 minute call. Normally, we were paying £14/month for phone + 8Mbit/s ADSL + unlimited UK landline calls + evening/weekend up-to-1hr international calls to western Europe, the US, NZ etc.)

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Amouth]

to be fair you said $12 not £12 which is (currently) ~$19.38

still that is damn cheap compared to lines here in the US.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[demonbug]

US landlines aren't a simple billing exercise. First you need a local carrier, this is say $30/month for "free local calls". Then you need a national carriers (could be the same company), this requires a monthly subscription too. Then you need, yes, you guessed it, an international carrier. There's a default to pick up the national and internationals, but the rates can be very high. Miss dial and that unconnected call can cost $4. Once you navigate this setup you get banged with umpteen levels of taxes and fees, which never seem to be the same month to month.

Things may have improved over the last few years, we gave up with land lines and use vonage's $25/month service (uses internet for connections but acts as as real phone system). This settled our national and international costs (free) for a while, but then the patent mess started and the FCC decided to stick its oar in. We now pay about $34/month for the $25/month service thanks to taxes and fees. Which is a hell of a lot better than regular phone companies (for us).

Doesn't sound familiar... prices have been steadily going up, but I currently pay $18 for local calling, and of course all local calls are free. Two years ago it was under $14, but AT&T really seems to be pushing people to switch over to their U-verse offering, where limited local calling starts at $25 per month (why do I want to pay more for less service?). On top of that is long distance, which includes international calling - not sure why you think you need separate long distance and international calling plans. Of course, I rarely use long distance on the land line since my cell phone has free nationwide calling, so we pay something like $4 a month for a plan with moderate long-distance rates, and on the rare occasion we make an international call we just pick up a calling card.

Don't know about Skype or Vonage, but the VoIP offerings from AT&T and Comcast seem to be designed to charge more for less service unless you are making a lot of long-distance calls.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[GuldKalle]

Phone companies are required by law to allow third party charges even if they are bogus.

Not according to this Ars article.

Cramming could be crammed. Phone companies are under no obligation to pass these charges along, and they can stop working with any third-party biller they wish; many of the payment processors have racked up mountains of complaints. Given that such charges are so often fraudulent, why don't the phone companies cut them off? Committee investigators suggest it's because the legitimate operators like AT&T and Verizon benefit from the scams.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[sjames]

You are assuming a simple bill. Some businesses get bills with hundreds of pages of itemized calls, individuals sometimes also get far more than you might imagine. Meanwhile, just noticing the charge is only step one. Actually wading through the plagues of locusts and the bog of eternal stench to get to a person at the phone company who can actually remove the bogus billing is another matter.

But if this is the sort of thing you need to feel superior to everyone else, go ahead and believe what you must, just don't spew it everywhere.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[jahudabudy]

Even without anyone doing anything evil, incorrect charges will occasionally turn up because someone made a data entry error.

You know, that sounds reasonable, and Hanlon's Razor and all, but I noticed something. I have NEVER EVER seen one of these data entry errors result in underbilling. And I have seen it result in overbiling dozens of times.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Rich0]

3) For reasons that are beyond me, many people have their phone bills set up to auto-pay (basically have the phone company just withdraw the money from the user's bank account).

Well, I have it sent to my credit card where I have more recourse, and there is a reason.

First - I don't let just about anybody else auto-bill my credit card or bank account. I use bill payment where I send the money to them (and it is under my control as a result).

I tried this with the phone company. They consistently applied my payments to an old phone number I used to own (despite having the correct phone number and account on the payments). So, every month I would get a past-due bill for the new number, and a statement showing a credit on my old number. After about 60-90 days they'd send me a check back for the credit, and a nasty-gram about the late phone bills. Every time I'd send them money they'd just send it back.

While the story was as amusing then as it is now, in the end I really just wanted my phone to work, so I signed up for auto-payment by credit card. For whatever reason they could competently manage that and a few refund checks later everything was resolved. They didn't charge me any fees after my phone calls, but it did waste plenty of my time, and no doubt even more of theirs.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[BZ]

Man. "Phone company can't properly apply a payment to an account" was definitely in the "reasons beyond me" bucket... and I'm sorry you had to deal with it. :(

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Attila Dimedici]

I have seen a data entry error result in underbilling, as in a service I ordered was billed to someone else. However, overbilling is much more common.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[Rich0]

Yup. You'd think that accepting money would be something for-profit companies would be good at. I can see delays on refunds, but inability to hold on to money?

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[wvmarle]

Having that kind of shitty and apparently sky-high bills, well that'd be a reason for me to move to one of the other half dozen or so mobile phone providers. Or use one of the other 100s of IDD service providers. It's as easy as that. That's called a free market for you.

Re:How are they mysterious and undetected??

[sjames]

Each and every one of them does the same thing. Most are quietly owned by the big players, the rest are utterly dependent on them for their existence. All hail our lord and savior the free market!

Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[geekmux]

"...It's time for us to take a new look at this problem and find a way to solve it once and for all."

Uh, you want to solve the problem of effective capitalism (a.k.a. greed and corruption) "once and for all"? Uhhh, yeah...good luck with that shit.

And asking Congress to step in? Congress should probably pick up a mirror first and wipe that kettle black off their face. I guarantee the average American is far more concerned with the trillions wasted by our Government and Congress than they are about an extra $10 on the phone bill.

Oh, and let's not forget about this. We're so focused on telcos and yet here we are, 20+ years later, and still cannot seem to order individual cable channels, and instead are forced (i.e. "crammed") into bundled packages and services. Let's not be ignorant and think this is a "new" problem, or one revolving around only telco providers. Everyone does it, it's all about the verbiage (fee vs. package deal)

Separate the extra charges

[Mark4ST]

Call your phone company and ask them to separate the extra charges from your phone bill. That way, the (perhaps) evil company will have to bill you independently of your phone bill. Often, they won't bother because they now know that you're the kind of person that doesn't mindlessly pay some mystery charge on your phone bill. I did this when I received a huge and clearly exploitative charge for receiving a collect call. This was several months ago and I have yet to hear back from the company that now has to send me a bill independently of the phone company.

But, but...

[smooth wombat]

I was told free markets solve everything. That you don't need government regulation to police corporations because people will simply stop doing business with them if they don't get the service/product they want.

I can't imagine that corporations would put profit over customer service. This must be a mistake.

Re:But, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The landline phone industry isn't a free market.

How many voice-over ip companies do this? Zero.

You can't even call to complain

[cvtan]

Compufix put a $12.95 charge on my phone bill even though I never used their "services". I had these charges blocked from my phone by calling the phone company. Blocking numbers creates an additional charge. Suppose I want to call Compufix to complain to them. They will want to know my name and phone number which I don't want bogus companies to have. Arrgh! I used to think evildoers would be caught and prosecuted, but I no longer think that.

There already is a law

[Anonymous Coward]

I am constantly seeing stories proposing a law to deal with a situation, but in most cases there already is a law, or a court ruling.

In this case. If you charge somebody for a service, but fail to provide the service, you are selling a fraud.

For anything else, it could be argued to be a breach of contract on the part of the phone carrier. If you did not agree to those services and parties, then they hould not be charging them to you.

Restricted websites?

[rebelwarlock]

Wait, the phone company gets to decide what sites you can and can't visit? What exactly does that mean? I haven't lived in the US since I was six years old, so I don't really know much about your ISP laws.

Re:Restricted websites?

[I'm not really here]

Restricted websites = pay for access (paywall) websites, such as porn, technical forums, some newspaper websites, etc.

Don't just hate the telcos

[kmdrtako]

But I suppose Comcast is, for all practical purposes, a telco too.

I buy broadband only from Comcast, and at a discount too from a reseller.

One month my bill doubled -- they started charging me for CableTV. Call them up, ask them why CableTV is on the bill. Wait for them to look up my records, then the lie that "someone at your address authorized the add on." I tell them "nope, I'm the only one at this address with the authority to do that, and I did not, so take it off, I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it." Next lie was "oh, we'll send someone out, you'll have to be at home for the service call." My response: "How did it get added without an installer coming out? You didn't need someone here to add it, you don't need anyone here to delete it."

My wife and kids are finally trained too. Verizon sales droid walking the neighborhood rings the doorbell when I'm not home, tries to sell my wife or kids, I forget who, on FIOS. Nope, they told the rep, you block port 80. The sales droid had no idea what that meant.

Re:Don't just hate the telcos

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I think Comcast's practices are unethical, wasn't that an untruth you told about being the only one at your address? Your next paragraph mentions your wife and kids which you imply live at the same address.

Re:Don't just hate the telcos

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and kids are finally trained too. Verizon sales droid walking the neighborhood rings the doorbell when I'm not home, tries to sell my wife or kids, I forget who, on FIOS. Nope, they told the rep, you block port 80. The sales droid had no idea what that meant.

Block port 80 how? I just tested my home linux web server from work and I can see it fine. Is this a specific physical area of their network or service?

Re:Don't just hate the telcos

[Sefi915]

You're not reading the whole comment.

He said "I'm the only one at this address with the authority to do that". He didn't say he was the only person there.

I do the same thing with my "household" - the house and all the bills are in my name, and if any telemarketers call, whomever answers the phone (if they want to, we do screen calls) they are instructed to answer "put it in writing, or give me a number and call reference number so the homeowner can call you back."

Re:Don't just hate the telcos

[kmdrtako]

Wait, you run Linux and you don't know how an ISP can block ports?

Anyway, there is some anecdotal evidence that Verizon is no longer blocking port 80. And a co-worker confirmed that port 80 is not blocked on his residential FIOS service. That's three.

Self regulation

[MM-tng]

What self regulation does not work. This comes as a big surprise to me.

Scary quote

[kmac06]

Wow, talk about a terrifying thing for a prominent senator to say:

It's time for us to take a new look at this problem and find a way to solve it once and for all.

Re:Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism != Fraud.

Capitalism has to do with revenue being steered through the economy by voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers instead of forced revenue diversion by an authoritative body. You can still regulate what is lawful for a business to do under capitalism.

What happens when everyone decries capitalism and gives government control of the economy? We end up rewarding failure and funding every special interest and wasteful project politicians can dream up. Believe me, corruption is much easier to deal with in the private sector than in government.

pbx hackings way worse

[Charliemopps]

That's nothing... most companies are so inept they never change their PBXs default password. Someone logs in over the weekend and starts routing calls to Europe all weekend. I've seen bills over $100k, it happens EVERY weekend and nothing can be done to refund the money. It's great when the CEO finally gets involved all calls the phone company complaining and they get to tell him "The admin password for your PBX was: 1111" and then he gets to go off an fire people.

Re:pbx hackings way worse

[sgt scrub]

"The admin password for your PBX was: 1111" and then he gets to go off an fire people.

And the new guy doesn't know the password so he doesn't change it either.

Re:pbx hackings way worse

[gknoy]

Why would the new guy not know what the password was, or take the time to find out?

Re:pbx hackings way worse

[sgt scrub]

a) Because the issue is a sore spot with the boss so the new guy avoids it until he is settled in.
b) Because the old guy didn't leave anything behind for the new guy and the boss doesn't know the password only that the router was owned.
c) Because the new guy has certs but no experience so he isn't up to speed on the router.
d) Because the old guy had certs but no experience and everything is just as fucked up so the new guy is putting out dozens of fires.
e) All of the above.

In my experience it has been e every time.

Re:USA = Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent some time in Russia in the past year, I'm going to call you full of crap.

the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Got family that works for a big phone company. Not a fan of the company mind you. Just wanted to give a shot at telling you what they told me about this whole mess.

Under the telecom act of 1996, the big phone companies at least, ATT, the 2 others, they're kinda between a rock and a hard place. The law requires that if some of these little piddly shit regional guys give them a signed LOA saying the customer wants a service, the phone company is REQUIRED BY LAW to push the billing through. Further, they are FORBIDDEN BY LAW to call and ask you if that's really your signature and if you really want this to go through.

Now they are required to do basic due diligence on the companies doing this. They have to make sure they're at least in appearance on the up and up. And if they get crap tons of people complaining about it they can eventually tell said company to take a hike, but it isn't instantaneous.

Anyways, the point is this isn't... entirely the big telecoms fucking you over. It's some shitty laws they helped write forcing them into a stupid position. So... don't just sit around and say we need to boycott them or some shit, push for the law to be changed.

Re:the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

this isn't... entirely the big telecoms fucking you over. It's some shitty laws they helped write

Well I'm glad you got that straightened out.

Or, to rephrase: "It wasn't me that ran you over, it was the car I was driving."

Freemarket Relies on Smart Consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Market does solve everything. I fail to see the problem here. When I check my bill every month to see what I'm paying for in the free-market system, I occasionally see billing errors. Intentional or unintentional, I contact my telco company (or any other for that matter) and ask about the charge. they inform me of what the bill indicates and if I have not received the service, I request that they remove it from my bill. I've never had a situation where after asking about a service I have not received I've still had to pay for it. As with anything in a "free society" doesn't mean "bereft of personal responsibility.

And before you tell me that the government will fix this, it takes more time to get my money back from the IRS each year than it has ever taken to correct a phone bill. and an order of magnitude more money.

Re:Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[geekmux]

Capitalism != Fraud.

Capitalism has to do with revenue being steered through the economy by voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers instead of forced revenue diversion by an authoritative body. You can still regulate what is lawful for a business to do under capitalism.

What happens when everyone decries capitalism and gives government control of the economy? We end up rewarding failure and funding every special interest and wasteful project politicians can dream up. Believe me, corruption is much easier to deal with in the private sector than in government.

What makes you think various governments aren't already in control of the economy? Please. And "voluntary transactions" vs. "forced revenue"? Two sides of the same coin, just depends on what side you're looking at. One persons (forced) taxes is another organizations (voluntary) revenue stream.

And I'm supposed to believe this? I've got one word for you on that shit.

Bailout.

'Nuff said.

Hmm...no problems here

[HikingStick]

I've had no problems with our current telco, though it might have more to do with the services we do (don't) use than anything else.

I have been with TDS for five of more years now. We review every bill and have not found a single unauthorized charge. Prior to that, we were with Qwest for around 10 years. During that time, I remember finding one or two unauthorized charges, but they were quickly removed when I called in.

With our current telco, TDS, our bill does not vary from month to month. We have an unlimited local calling pack and our DSL service. We do not have a long distance carrier. No long distance calls may be made directly from our number. We requested the block when we established our service because we either used calling cards for long distance (at a little over one cent per minute), or our cell phones (no distinction between local/long distance calls). Because of that, our bill remains the same every month. If the bill ever is different, we can see it immediately. So, the two times we've used 4-1-1 service from the house were easy to spot, as was the change in the billing amount when we upgraded our DSL service (a price drop!).

I'm guessing that it is much easier to "cram" charges on accounts that have long distance services and limited call packages, since consumers expect that their monthly bills will vary. So long as the charges don't push the bill beyond where it usually falls, most people likely just pay up and wait for the next one.

Direct Withdraw

[sgt scrub]

I blame direct withdraw for people not noticing it. Verizon tagged an addition $6 on my first bill for not allowing them to take money directly from my account. It is in the fine print. Needless to say I told them to go fuck themselves and nix'd the account. Every bill I pay gets looked at while I write the check so I notice everything and have a solid paper trial of my own. Unfortunately, more corporations are pushing this. IMHO so they are protected from the pissed off customer that refuses to pay the extra month and mysterious extra charges on the last bill after telling them to fuck off.

Mod parent up!

[Hatta]

The parent post exhibits a keenly accurate understanding of the American legal system.

Right

[U8MyData]

They know exactly what they are doing. It's like throttling internet access. I am now living in an area outside conventional broadband. All I have is my verizon android. I have already discovered that my occasional video watching (news sites, youtube, etc) and my mild surfing habits are too much for my 2 GB tethering service. Sure, I could go up to 5 GB but that would add another $30. I think if I call and complain I would be labled a bandwidth abuser and told to go to... Really I don't abuse the internet, I'm just a systems pro and use it more than grandma. It's all about money, forget service outside trying to take customers away from the competitors.

Long Distance isn't bogus, what's bogus is...

[sys_mast]

Long Distance isn't bogus, at least there was a time when it had a purpose, what's bogus is a fee NOT to have long distance. That's right, there is a charge NOT to be able to use your phone. This happened to me a few years back, I think it was SBC, now re-branded to ATT. I ordered a 2nd line for modem line, didn't have a need to be able to make a long distance call on that line, I'd be happy with "this call can't be completed" for anything non-local. They told me the charge was 3$ a month, NOT to be able to make a call. Despite my pressing for a while, and talking to a "supervisor" still had to pay. The response was, the FCC permits us to charge you this. Huh, really, give me a break. Of course they couldn't provide the FCC regulation number or rule that permitted the charge, so I call them liars. If by some chance the FCC does permit that, sounds like the Telecoms purchased some FCC regulations.

My solution was to sign up for an alternative long distance provider, one that didn't have the greatest $/min rate, BUT had zero monthly fee. In my case, zero use = zero bill from them. Worked great for the few years I wanted that line.

Re:Long Distance isn't bogus, what's bogus is...

[stephathome]

I had that exact situation with SBC once too. It was ridiculous.

On landlines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who still has a landline?? Certainly in Australia, you can get ADSL without actually subscribing to a phone service (all houses have physical lines courtesy of our monopoly, but you don't even have to pay line rental anymore AFAIK). Mobile, plus internet. Landlines are going the way of the floppy disk and the dinosaur.

Re:On landlines?

[Eunuchswear]

You don't get phone on your ADSL?

Here in France most ADSL comes with "triple-play" - Phone, TV and internet.

Usualy the phone gives you free national calls, often free to Europe, US and other places.

On by default

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, Shaw Cable blocks 900, Collect Calls, and third-party charges by default. And no, you can't turn them on, ever.

Which They May Or May Not Do

[Greyfox]

Mom did a story a few years back about a family that had blocked International calling and then the phone company just went ahead and unblocked it the next month. Apparently they did mention it in a tiny line item on the bill. So they don't notice this and their kid goes and downloads an "Internet Dialer" that dials an international number and racks up a $10,000 phone bill, which the phone company was planning on holding them to last I heard.

"Solve" It?

[Greyfox]

I think I just figured out the solution to America's budget problem! We'll just cram $14 trillion onto next month's phone bill!

Re:"Solve" It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they'll end up doing this one way or another... You're not going to get out of your debt the easy way, dudes.

Re:"Solve" It?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans only allow this if the telco's get to keep the money not to fix the budget.

Re:"Solve" It?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats only allow this if it half goes to their wallet and the other half to a special interest group that "deserves" it because they support the Democrats.

Re:"Solve" It?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way to do it would be to add a "Paydown" amount to tax returns. There are roughly 140 million tax returns filed annually, so that's only $100 a head. I'd gladly sign on to an extra $100 for one year if that money actually went to reducing the national debt.

It'll go to the black hole otherwise known as...

[sargeUSMC]

a Congressional committee. They'll talk, they'll call up witnesses, they'll point fingers, they'll make great speeches, and at the end of the day, like everything else that goes to committee, nothing will be done.

10+ Years of crap and now take a look?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you rubbing my knob? in 2011, now the Senate get's around to taking a look, only after the problem becomes an emergency.
What is there an FCC and FTC for? these agencies seem only to protect they spying and the money flowing from our pockets and communications to their filthy bank accounts. Just one of these phone crammer's has already committed three felonies. Three strikes, it ought to be life in prison. Or at least some broken legs or a burned down house. It would be cheaper to just shoot them.

Re:Who

[Mister Transistor]

Besides responding to an obvious troll, I'd like to point out that I have a VoIP service (ATT U-Verse), and they do the exact same thing, adding about 10 stupid misc. "government" fees and "equipment surcharges" to the bill. It's just as incomprehensible and steeped in nonsense as the old land-line bills used to be, and the assholes manage to "bill creep" me up about $3-5 more and more every damn month, just like the old land-line. Progress? You tell me...

Ironically ...

[daveywest]

I've never had this problem with my landline. Odd charges crammed on my cell phones? Now that's another story. Just last month, a recurring ringtone download subscription showed up on my wife's phone bill. She doesn't even have a phone that can get data.

Underscores what's wrong with business

[swb]

There's far too much emphasis on rolling in fees as a source of revenue growth instead of raising prices to account for the needed revenue.

I'd like to see some kind of regulation that would prohibit adding fees to the cost of a service unless the fees represented a charge for a service that was optional and supplied and delivered by the same company providing the primary purchased service.

The only loophole would be if you agreed in writing, in an agreement seperate from any other service agreement, to allow charges and this agreement could be unilaterally cancelled at any time by payee without obligation to pay any outstanding fees and without threatening other services. This would make companies very hesitant to engage in this practice since it would leave them vulnerable to a haircut on these fees with no means of recouping them.

This, for example, would make airline fuel surcharges (aka, fare increases without fare increases) prohibited, yet baggage fees wouldn't be, since they are inherently optional (I don't like them either, but you don't *need* to check a bag to fly on a plane).

Phone company charges would be impossible, since a seperate written agreement wouldn't be worth the effort on their part.

The barrier to entry in CPUs

[tepples]

That is irrelevant to the point.

I disagree. There are two ways to reduce the harmful effects of monopoly: regulate the monopoly, or weaken the artificial property rights that create barriers to entry.

Prove that there is no barrier or entry in... lets say CPUs, and we can talk.

Even the barrier to entry in CPUs stems at least in part from government regulation. Patented instruction sets combined with a copyright structure that encourages hiding source code help keep the owners of specific widely used instruction sets (Intel and ARM) in power.

Re:The barrier to entry in CPUs

[del_diablo]

Oh, I confused your, a "patents is evil"-type with "dog of the free anarchy".
I apologize for being rude, your point stands correct.

$100 per year

[tepples]

Where I live, caller ID on a land line costs $100 per year. How should I justify this to others in my household?

Re:$100 per year

[Golddess]

Skip the caller ID portion of GP's proposed system and just use the answering machine / voice mail?

Re:$100 per year

[Radtastic]

Teach your family to respond to EVERYONE they don't recognize with: "I don't know you personally. I'm hanging up now. Feel free to call back and leave a message and we'll review it." (And your kids will love saying "kthxbye!")

If it's important, they'll call back. If not, problem solved.

No line items for unmetered services

[tepples]

you must not get detailed call logs - i get one line item per call both in and out

Where I live (United States), services that do not result in a charge do not produce a log item. On a land line, these include incoming calls (except collect calls), local calls, and calls to toll-free numbers.

Re:No line items for unmetered services

[Amouth]

i too am in the US.. and AT&T has always sent me detailed call logs.

Re:Who

[mabhatter654]

Those are "required" by the regulators though... Crooked, but that's how "adjustments" work when they go thru big bureaucracy.

No wonder...

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

AT&T and Verizon is known as the "dividend king", paying out 5%+ annual yield (w.r.t. share price) to its investors. May be it is time to load up xD.

protection, I got protection

[slick7]

Congress needs to pass legislation to protect customers from unauthorized third-party charges

Congress NEEDS to get their shit together. I am of the opinion that America can no longer afford Congress' protection.

Seniors are used to land line voice mail

[tepples]

Get rid of your landline.

If we ditch the land line, then what will those people in the household who lack their own cell phone use? You appear to answer that here:

In fact, my son and I both have a cell on a family plan for monthly charges less than what the landline cost.

But unlike a land line answering machine, a cell phone doesn't automatically turn on speakerphone when receiving voice mail so that the customer can pick up and answer the incoming call. Instead, the person being called has to wait for the caller to hang up, listen to the voice mail, and then make an outgoing call. This is a big change for a senior citizen who relies on an answering machine for screening incoming calls, especially on plans that charge more for outgoing calls than incoming calls. And a lot of phone companies will charge DSL customers without a land line a "line fee" equal to the price of a land line.

Re:Seniors are used to land line voice mail

[Lumpy]

Answering machine? What is this 1984?

Voice mail is better, using a real service like an asterisk box or google voice parsing all the incoming calls is better. I have a land line coming in that goes into a FXO card on my asterisk box, all the cisco phones in the house have a soft button programmed as "BLACKLIST" if we get a unwanted sales call we push it without saying a word and that number will never ever ring the phone again but go directly to voicemail, it then get's dumped into a "torture the sales drone" que.

My 80 year old mother has an answering machine.... go and try to fin those endless casette tapes for the outgoing message... hers is so used you can hear other calls under the current call...

Re:Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Ireland they have a TV Tax
There isn't a giant molten pile of smoking TV's in the town square yet, because they ALLOW themselves to be controlled under government authority.

Track down where the tax goes and you track down who bought the sugar they put in grandpa's tank.

In the US the fios splitters by the NSA, no boycott or giant molten pile of smouldering servers and routers, because Amercians ALLOW themselves to be controlled under the Patriot Act authority. It's not like they are going to come and explain everything to you and then ask if you agree or disagree. they just do it because you allow them to.

Re:Who, remember faux-capitalism

[OldHawk777]

In America taking money for nothing is just good business practices that we all should emulate.

Faux-capitalist are legal, it all falls under "caveat emptor" [AKA: FuckUS Fees]

It is done with television dramatic-adds for fat-pills, miracle cures, cult-begging.... It is all good business practices, look at bank loans, credit cards....

Good FuckUS Fees are part of the new American business model that helps increase payroll and stock prices. Corporate welfare is a tax-payer FuckUS Fee of faux-capitalism, and it ain't never been just tax-payer bailouts and law/legislation.

Folks need to just pay-up and shut-up! To help keep the economy healthy for US?

Re:Who

[Danse]

Those are "required" by the regulators though... Crooked, but that's how "adjustments" work when they go thru big bureaucracy.

Some of them are, but others are just things that the telecom companies add themselves, but call them something that sounds like it's a government-mandated fee. I've seen this from Sprint and Verizon both in the past. If you call and ask about them, they will usually tell you that it's a mandatory fee. I had to get escalated a couple of times to some higher level manager before I was able to find out that they weren't actually mandated by the government, but were, in fact, just additional charges added by the company.

It Is Theft - And Fraud

[NeverVotedBush]

Wrong. These are fraudulent charges and the phone companies - land and cellular - basically collude. I was slammed by "Celebrity Squares" and started getting text messages sent to my phone that were stupid quiz questions about celebrities. I thought it was just junk text messages and would delete them.

I finally got tired of it and looked them up online to find how to stop the annoyance. That's when a few of the Google hits were about fraudulent charges. I immediately checked my bill and sure enough - buried in a line that I had to expand twice were the charges from Celebrity Squares.

I called Celebrity Squares and they said I had specifically requested the "service". I have a static IP address and they gave me a date, time, and my IP address to say that I had signed up and I had not. My logs don't go back that far or I would have seen what website I gave my call phone number to because they were either corrupt or compromised. Regardless, this was a fraudulent charge and had been happening for a while.

I demanded all money back but they only refunded $30. I called my cell phone company, told them my story, complained about the fraudulent charges, and they also refunded $30. $160 had been taken from my account by Celebrity Squares.

I was fed up so contacted my Senator who took up the case and contacted the cell phone company about the charges, hiding the charges on my bill (I sent them screen grabs since I do online paperless billing), and allowing Celebrity Squares (and others) to add charges to people's bills without the customer's permission. The cell company refunded all of the money taken by Celebrity Squares and was going to back bill them for the amount.

My case was one of the ones presented as evidence during the Senate hearings this week. Companies like Celebrity Squares are dirty and the cell phone companies are more than happy to let them add charges because they get a cut. They make millions off of these scams. I can only guess how much money Celebrity Squares and others make.

If you get monthly stupid celebrity quiz questions, they got you too. Go check your bill and see how much you are being charged and you can see how much money you have had stolen.

This is a huge problem.

As an aside, the cell companies can lock out those kinds of charges but you have to opt out. By default you are opted in and third party companies can add charges to anyone's bill that hasn't said specifically to block them. One of the points I made to my Senator was that that needed to change. People should be opted out by default and have to choose to allow such charges.

Please post a reply if you got slammed by Celebrity Squares. And tell your Senators. Or if you got slammed by anyone. The more who come forward, the better chance of getting legislation passed that blocks these activities and if your evidence is good enough, we might be able to get prosecution for companies like Celebrity Squares.

Re:It Is Theft - And Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon to preserve moderation.

You, sir, are a gd American hero.

AT&T is a long distance company

[tepples]

If you get a bill from AT&T, and your ILEC isn't the Baby Bell formerly known as SBC, you're making long distance calls. Those are metered, and those are itemized. Or perhaps you're paying extra for a service tier that has printed call logs.

Re:Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[tepples]

here we are, 20+ years later, and still cannot seem to order individual cable channels, and instead are forced (i.e. "crammed") into bundled packages and services.

Capitalism has to do with revenue being steered through the economy by voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers instead of forced revenue diversion by an authoritative body.

Cable companies and telcos operate on franchises, which constitute "forced revenue diversion by an authoritative body." Otherwise, the cable companies and telcos wouldn't be allowed to tear up the streets to install the last mile.

Cable Internet without cable TV?

[tepples]

My response to my parents was that they should drop AT&T and get a VoIP line. We switched to a Comcast business account for cable and to voipo for phone service.

But is switching from DSL + POTS to cable Internet + VoIP cost effective for families that have ditched cable TV in favor of $8/mo video on demand?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This whole story is untrue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that not ONE of these complainers had any knowledge of signing up for the service is ridiculous. I've worked in the phone industry and while I hate those bastards quite a bit, here's how that call usually goes. "Hi, why is my bill high?" "Im sorry to hear your bill is high, lets take a look. Oh it seems "someone" (We never say YOU) signed up for a chat line service membership." "Oh well pssh I wouldn't do that, and I'm the only one here." (So that's a lie, if it wasn't you it was someone FROM YOUR PHYSICAL LOCATION.) "Ok, well I can give you the number to the company that is charging you so you can settle that matter." (Smartass slashdotter says.) "Well I didn't authorize that so I shouldn't have to call them for anything." "Ok then, I'll reverse the charges, but they may still put the amount in collections because you haven't discussed it with them. Anything else I can do for you today?"

It's this kind of childish attitude that ruins peoples credit. They "accidentally" agree to a monthly fee, either online, or using a card they fill out at the mall, or some other way that they were too stupid to read, then claim its all the phone companies fault cuz thats who sent them the bill. Ridiculous. Seriously. These complainers can easily get a refund, it RARELY happens a second time, and the instances of companies who use this tactic are low. Also the 2bn $, doesn't go to the phone company, that number is divided among the thousands of 3rd party billers who exist in the world. Self regulation is working because you can call and request to have that blocked. The idea that it should be like that by default is stupid. Block 3rd party, Block 900/976 etc, Block intl, Block inmate calls. Easy and done, you can do that when you set up the phone line. The problem is that people dont read their bill, and before you start with the stupidity, ALL phone companies have taken steps to make your bill less than 3 pages, so dont even start.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

no fees!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Magic Jack!

The Regulators

[doggo]

'It's pretty obvious at this point that voluntary guidelines aren't solving this problem,' says Rockefeller. 'It's time for us to take a new look at this problem and find a way to solve it once and for all.'"

Wait. What? You mean if you don't regulate an industry they won't just do the right thing and regulate themselves, especially when they can profit by not self-regulating? Shocking! I'm shocked!

But deregulation leads to innovation, right? So these "landline" phone companies are producing amazing innovative products, right? Yeah, innovative ways of ripping off consumers.

Re:Who

[josecanuc]

So, were you able to opt out of the not-government-mandated charges, or did you still have to pay it?

Re:Uh, solve the problem? Of Capitalism?

[nukenerd]

AC said :- "Believe me, corruption is much easier to deal with in the private sector than in government."

No it is not . One reason is that if people discover that their government is doing something corrupt they howl with indignation, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the government is supposed to be their agent. OTOH, with the private sector they (people like you?) shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, that's business, you can't make omelettes without cracking eggs, they have to make a profit somehow." I hear people talking like that about Microsoft (for example) when their corrupt practices are pointed out, and they said it about Rupert Murdoch for years, until last week.

Also, in these days of international business, sub-sub-sub-sub-contracting, and offshoring, we are usually told that corrupt businesses are legally out of reach - spammers, crappy Chinese tool companies, and Murdoch's companies for example.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Difficult problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We discovered this at the last company I worked for. We called AT&T and requested they block 3rd party billing and were told dude to FCC regulations, they were not allowed to block 3rd party billing. We tried contacting the company that the charges were from, only to find out they were just a "billing company". Their only function to bill charges for other companies. We tried contacting them, and the company they were billing for and after going round and round we were finally able to get them to refund the charges.

Long story short; after lodging a complaint with the FCC and state attourney general's office, we were contacted by AT&T and told they were placing a block for 3rd party billing on our account. The companies, after refunding old charges, had continued charging on new bills until then. The charges were for web hosting and network fax services (or something like that).

After this we began informing all of our customers using AT&T phone services (btw we were a telephone system/networking services company). Every customer using AT&T had the same charges and had no idea.

Interrupting the leaving of voice mail

[tepples]

Voice mail is better, using a real service like an asterisk box or google voice parsing all the incoming calls is better.

Three problems with this: First, people who don't use the web daily don't know "a real service" even exists. Second, I've read that a lot of areas have run out of local numbers, meaning other people will need to pay per minute for long distance to call a Google Voice customer. Third, what is the counterpart to picking up a handset while the caller is leaving voice mail and interrupting the leaving of voice mail to begin a live conversation?

all the cisco phones in the house have a soft button programmed as "BLACKLIST" if we get a unwanted sales call we push it without saying a word and that number will never ever ring the phone again

How does that work without $100 per year Caller ID service?

My 80 year old mother has an answering machine.... go and try to fin those endless casette tapes for the outgoing message

Which is when my nonna replaced her tape answering machine with a solid-state one.