Google Fiber Cuts Kansas City Resident's Internet Access Over 12 Cent Dispute (kansascity.com)

New submitter twentysixV writes: Google Fiber offered a seven-year internet service if you pay upfront for connecting to your house, including taxes and fees. Victoria Tane signed this deal: $300 to connect, plus $25.08 for taxes and fees. Google Fiber internally accounts it as ongoing recurring payments. Kansas then raises taxes. Instead of absorbing the tax increase for customers who paid upfront, Google Fiber books it to the customers. To punish the customer for now being late on paying 12 cents she was not aware she now owed for additional taxes, Google then cut her internet access. According to Kansas City News, Tane tried to pay but Google wouldn't take checks for less than $10. Google reportedly tried contacting her via emails and voice messages, but Tane never saw them. When asked about the incident, Google Fiber issued a statement: "As with any customer who has a balance due, we made repeated attempts to reach Ms. Tane to resolve the matter. Google Fiber values our customers, and we have since worked with Ms. Tane to restore her Fiber service." Google forgave the total, restored Tane's service in less than an hour and credited her account for $30, reports Kansas City News.

Comments

1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

So less than an hour after the automatic disconnect, it was fixed. And they wiped the balance, thus eating the cost increase. Plus the time spent trying to reach her ahead of time.

Such a bullshit nonstory, such a bullshit headline. Fuck you, Beau.

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

So less than an hour after the automatic disconnect, it was fixed. And they wiped the balance, thus eating the cost increase. Plus the time spent trying to reach her ahead of time.

Such a bullshit nonstory, such a bullshit headline.

On the one hand, compared to the usual expected experience from the incumbent monopolists, yes.

On the other hand, nobody at google looks at this sort of thing and goes "waitaminute...", so that "trying to reach her" is also completely fully automated with no human in the loop anywhere, or the humans in the loop aren't actually thinking at all.

Somebody ought to've caught it before it cost them a bundle of bad press and a couple tenners in credit. As damage reduction it's cheap but it can only ever reduce, not wipe out the damage. For it's still cutting someone off over a ridiculously low amount that was essentially a bookkeeping fail, that they never ought to have charged due to their promises to the customer.

Fuck you, Beau.

Usually, yeah. For this, maybe not.

For sure, there are more spectacular failures to be found inflicted on other ISPs' customers every day, but this still is a sure fail that a well-regulated company ought not to have exhibited.

Re:1 hour.

[lucm]

The $10 minimum for checks is interesting though. Someone I know had a similar issue; they owed the DWP $0.80 but couldn't send a check for less than $1. They were getting past due notices, so they ended up sending a $5 check, and got a $4.20 refund.

Checks are retarded.

Re: 1 hour.

[Monster_user]

Obligatory: "I for one welcomeour AI overlords!"

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

if a company is so fucked-up they won't accept a check for less than $10.. they shouldn't be sending or trying to collect on bills for less than $10 either.

yes, i see how this could be abused.. but fuck them. if i owed $100 and knew they would surrender on and zero-out amounts due of under $10, damn right i'd send a $90.01 payment.. just cuz.. they're already screwing me over for way more than that anyway.. especially in the internet, wireless and cable business.

Re:1 hour.

[ShanghaiBill]

The $10 minimum for checks is interesting though.

Having a $10 minimum is reasonable if they also have a policy of rolling over any charge for less than $10.

Having a $10 minimum while cutting of customers that owe $0.12 is not reasonable.

Re:1 hour.

[KingMotley]

I have comcast, was down for 3 days before they got it restored, and my bill was current. And I pay more for my internet with comcast then I would would google fiber.

If this was comcast, I would have been on the phone for an hour only to be told I needed to call a different department that was now closed. If this is how google mistreats people, please SIGN ME UP!

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably why first-world countries stopped using them a decade or more ago.

Re: 1 hour.

[nitehawk214]

And having a system that cuts people off after being $.12 short is fucking stupid.

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty unusual for a company to "not" be set up to take yer money. Most companies have fantastic amounts of "take yer money" machinery, including billing systems, tracking systems, auditing system, bookkeeping systems, ledgers, graphs, and powerpoint-presentation-o-matic generators for the stockholder meetings. Companies usually have far less "give yer money back" hardware which usually goes at the rate of Joe writing checks in the basement, and please wait at least 6 months for them to clear.

In this case the company was running so far on autopilot that they didn't realize it had gone into exterminating the human race and was in the middle of roasting babies on a pitchfork before they decided "this ain't right". Running too fast in the wrong direction - it's the new disease in tech. The alarming thing is that it takes a PR nightmare to shut these things down. For every one story we hear about you're guaranteed there's at least a hundred more we don't get to hear about. Someone, somewhere, is fighting a lawsuit against Google because their phone is just the right Google shade of green and it's infringing on copyright. Somewhere.

Re:1 hour.

[Gussington]

So less than an hour after the automatic disconnect, it was fixed. And they wiped the balance, thus eating the cost increase. Plus the time spent trying to reach her ahead of time.

Such a bullshit nonstory..

I agree it isn't much of a story, but what moron design such a system? And is this the same people writing the software for autonomous cars? As an example of how it could've been done, my insurance company simply absorbs any transaction under $10. I'm sure they just add all of these up and spread them across everyone's premium next year, but it makes small fry shit like this a non-problem.

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, nobody at google looks at this sort of thing and goes "waitaminute...", so that "trying to reach her" is also completely fully automated with no human in the loop anywhere, or the humans in the loop aren't actually thinking at all.

This is standard. I changed internet providers about 3 years ago. To close my account, they required me to take my router in to their authorized retailer, and he calculated the final bill and gave me a refund for the unused portion of my last month on the spot. But since 1c coins were made obsolete here about a decade ago, he over-refunded me by 1 cent, following good retail practice of erring in favour of the customer. Every month since then, I've received a bill for 0.01. Obviously there is some human review or sanity check before sending accounts to the debt collectors, as they haven't tried to take it any further than sending me a bill every month in the last 3 years, but it is quite amusing that even with a fully automated email based system, it has to have cost them more than 0.01 to keep doing this for so long.

 

Re:1 hour.

[jandersen]

Such a bullshit nonstory, such a bullshit headline. Fuck you, Beau.

Yes, I don't understand the editorial line that /. has taken - it is becoming more and more about inflating trivia to make it sound sensational, rather than real news with some thoughtful analysis behind. The thing is, this editorial line frustrates those of us who have been faithful readers for years, adding much of the comment that is actually driving the success of /. - when we submit comments, we do valuable work for the site in generating interest and starting cascades of comments etc, and we don't receive payment in any form. On that background, is it wise of the editors to constantly frustrate us with deceptive headlines? Every time I come across such a story and click on a link to an idiotic, vapid non-story, I get a little closer to simply abandoning /. as inconsequential. That is sad, I think - at on time this community gave name to the 'slashdot effect' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect), but when has that last happened? Bad editorship is what has eroded the core contributers away - those of us that are still left, stay mostly out of habit.

Re:1 hour.

[tlhIngan]

So less than an hour after the automatic disconnect, it was fixed. And they wiped the balance, thus eating the cost increase. Plus the time spent trying to reach her ahead of time.

Such a bullshit nonstory, such a bullshit headline. Fuck you, Beau.

No, the story is how much it costs for 12 cents. Most companies have policies that forgive certain amounts, as well as absorb certain amounts. For example, if you look closely, your taxes are probably marked as "paid" if they're +/- $20 or so, because the tax office knows pursuing people, as well as cutting a cheque, would cost more than that. Either the amount is rolled over internally or it's simply forgiven. Or if it's refund, it's usually just held - the cost of issuing the cheque would cost more.

For 12 cents, they disconnect an account. User calls in, and over the course of time, it costs Google way more money to handle the support call and reconnect the user than 12 cents. Sorry, even the cheapest of call centers charges more in labour. Hell, even the phone call itself would be a good chunk of that money owed.

The business practice of assuming down to every last penny needs to stop - it's just a genuine waste of time and money to pursue such trivial amounts.

Heck, I remember a credit card was sending past due notices on around... $2 or so. The cost of the letters themselves were exceeding the amount, and even the collect call costed more in the end. In the pursuit of $2, the company probably spent close to $20 in mailing and phone calls and labour. Hell, it would be amusing if they decided to engage their lawyer too, waste even more money.

Hell, some companies send such small amounts to collections. I'm surprised the collections people even bother buying up such small amounts because it's going to cost them more money to try to collect it than write it off.

Heck, Google should's just asked for a credit card. Yes, I've seen companies do that - they'd charge you the 12 cents despite it costing them probably 30 cents in total in fees.

Trust me, for most companies, collecting down to the last $20 or so is negative returns - the cost of labour and notifications and all that will generally be way more money

Re:1 hour.

[Interfacer]

It's quaint that people in the US still use checks. :-)

Re:1 hour.

[xanclic]

According to the article, she was without internet access for two days. Then she called customer service, and access was then restored in less than an hour.

And I don't see where they tried to reach her ahead of time. It appears to me that all of the emails and voice messages were issued during the two days while her connection was down.

Re: 1 hour.

[dougdonovan]

$0.12 adds up but you have to be into money.

Re:1 hour.

[thsths]

Exactly. If you insist on a payment of $0.12, that is stupid, but it is probably you right. However, you should also offer the full range of initial payment options. Although to be honest, I do not know a payment method that would make sense .

Re:1 hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

Checks still have their place, especially when dealing with small businesses. The credit card companies skim off the top of each transaction, and for mom and pop small businesses, that eats right into their livelihoods.

Example, my daughter's in-home daycare can't afford to let Visa skim 2% to 3% right off the top every week, and us parents sure as hell don't want the cost of daycare to go up that amount for some minor convenience. So we use checks.

Re:1 hour.

[Gilgaron]

I know they don't send bills first class mail but even discounting postage and a machine probably stuffs the mailer, but that is a hilarious expense in envelopes and billing forms for one cent.

Re:1 hour.

[rholtzjr]

It's not their fault. It's their new AI that they have been working on.

Re:1 hour.

[Wycliffe]

This is standard. I changed internet providers about 3 years ago. To close my account, they required me to take my router in to their authorized retailer, and he calculated the final bill and gave me a refund for the unused portion of my last month on the spot. But since 1c coins were made obsolete here about a decade ago, he over-refunded me by 1 cent, following good retail practice of erring in favour of the customer. Every month since then, I've received a bill for 0.01. Obviously there is some human review or sanity check before sending accounts to the debt collectors, as they haven't tried to take it any further than sending me a bill every month in the last 3 years, but it is quite amusing that even with a fully automated email based system, it has to have cost them more than 0.01 to keep doing this for so long.

This is no longer becoming standard. I recently noticed my phone company contract has the cutoff at $10 which I actually thought was high. I've also on multiple occasions tried to pay a bill from the local hospital in the $5-$15 dollar range only to find out that the hospital already waived and closed it. They wouldn't even let me pay it. I do occasionally still get checks and bills for under $5 but I haven't seen one under $1 for quite a while. Most banks also have policies where they will close accounts of less than $10 after so many months of inactivity.

Re:1 hour.

[rholtzjr]

That sounds similar to a situation my folks have with county taxes. They had purchased a parcel of land that is in two different counties. A majority of the land was on one county, but a VERY small portion was in another. You guessed it. The total annual taxes for the smaller portion came to $0.01 (probably $0.25 today) which they dutifully payed every year in person to the tax collectors office all the while of occupying as much time as possible from the county collector (way more cost than their payment's worth of taxes) to point out the stupidity. And this continues to this day.

Re:1 hour.

[Wycliffe]

It's quaint that people in the US still use checks. :-)

One box of checks usually lasts me 4-5 years.
Checks are better than cash for paying small people not set up to accept credit cards like babysitters, lawn care, school fundraisers, school tshirts, friends, etc...
Checks are also better than credit cards for larger purchases like rent, daycare, and taxes where that 3% fee is significant.

Re:1 hour.

[jedidiah]

> Probably why first-world countries stopped using them a decade or more ago.

The fact that banks like to take a piece of every credit card transaction that ever gets processed has nothing to do with this.

This is the first time I've ever heard of a company comparable to a national ISP not take checks (even small checks) as payment. This entire mess is caused entirely by the same sort of "but we're better than that" attitude you're trying to perpetrate.

No, it's not the 24th century yet. It doesn't matter how deluded you are about it.

Re:1 hour.

[GLMDesigns]

I'm not a google fan. I think they've gone full evil (re censorship)

Been switching to Brave and DuckDuckGo and zoho. However, this is not an example of Google being evil. This is an example of Google being a good corporate citizen.

Re:1 hour.

[bigpat]

Such a bullshit nonstory, such a bullshit headline. Fuck you, Beau.

Yes, I don't understand the editorial line that /. has taken - it is becoming more and more about inflating trivia to make it sound sensational, rather than real news with some thoughtful analysis behind. The thing is, this editorial line frustrates those of us who have been faithful readers for years, adding much of the comment that is actually driving the success of /. - when we submit comments, we do valuable work for the site in generating interest and starting cascades of comments etc, and we don't receive payment in any form. On that background, is it wise of the editors to constantly frustrate us with deceptive headlines? Every time I come across such a story and click on a link to an idiotic, vapid non-story, I get a little closer to simply abandoning /. as inconsequential. That is sad, I think - at on time this community gave name to the 'slashdot effect' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect), but when has that last happened? Bad editorship is what has eroded the core contributers away - those of us that are still left, stay mostly out of habit.

I still like the user based moderating system better than most discussion websites. At this point do stories automatically get promoted to the home page based on the firehouse submissions? If so I could understand how things like this get through. Otherwise this appears to be an attack ad by Google's competitors rather than real news story.

Re:1 hour.

[houghi]

I have been on the other side. I worked at a company then would send out bills that would not be paid. Talking about things under 5EUR or so. I explained first to the CFO and then to the CEO that it is not economically wise to do so.
Made a mini-business case.
It took 4 meetings to explain that taking the "loss" was cheaper than sending the letters.

The solution was that we send three letters. The first as that is required by law. The second, because sometimes do not see the first. The third for people who would get afraid and pay up. After that we just deducted it as a loss.
Save the company around 10.000 per year.

But that took 4 meetings with the CEO (and CFO) before they accepted it. Before I could speak with the CEO I had to defend it before my N+1 and N+2 and I think the CEO just gave in to get rid of me.

Many things like this exist, not because it is logical, but it is too hard to change and most people just give up. When it was put in place, they did not think about it, because incoming profit and outgoing cost for stamps and paper are two different departments.

Re:1 hour.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Since that memo suggesting that Google's gender gap might be explained by women having less interest in or aptitude for software engineering, and Damore argued that Google was becoming an "ideological echo chamber" where right-of-center views weren't welcome. When Google terminated Damore, many conservatives argued that Google proved Damore's point. Google has clearly gone evil, and they deserve all the shit that they get. Including journalistic bias and outright fake news. Fuck 'em. And I say this as a former staunch Google loyalist.

Re:1 hour.

[bluefoxlucid]

There were probably a lot of automated systems in the chain and not a lot of humans, so of course nobody cared.

Re:1 hour.

[Quirkz]

Your doctors and hospitals are sensible. We've gotten a bill mailed to us for $0.13 before. I know they paid more on the postage. They did waive it after we called and asked, but I don't know why they don't have that filter built in.

Right now we've got a bill for $1.16 from the pediatrician on our counter. That one isn't quite as absurd, and if we owe it we're happy to pay it, but it still seems silly.

Re:1 hour.

[Solandri]

I had Verizon DSL at my business address. When I moved my business, I had the service moved as well. Verizon apparently doesn't have a way to transfer a dry loop (no corresponding phone service) DSL service, so they created a new account at my new address, then transferred the remainder of my service contract to the new account.

Everything seemed fine at first. I got the bills, paid them, the service continued. Then about 3 months later I got a letter from Verizon which contained a refund check for the same amount of my monthly bill. I called Verizon, and the CSR had no idea what the refund check was about. He said my account was paid and current. I didn't quite believe him (TANSTAAFL). So I waited for the following month's statement, which indeed showed no balance due. I called Verizon again, and again the CSR was unable to explain the refund check. Since the check said it was only good for 6 months and I was at 5 months, I went ahead and cashed it.

Long story short, when they'd moved my service to the new account, they'd applied my last payment for the old account to the new account. So my new account had a credit for the monthly fee. After 3 months their computer system noticed the continuous credit, automatically generated a refund check, and sent it to me. This was why everything appeared fine on my new account.

My old account however had never been paid off - they'd applied that payment to my new account. It continued accruing late fees, until after several months they sent it to collections and dinged my credit. All of this without contacting me by cell phone or email (both of which were on file with the old account) or postal mail (I'd set up forwarding with the post office). Apparently their system had no notes saying that my new account was generated as the result of a move, and oh by the way here is the old account number. So the CSRs never checked nor even knew that I had an old account.

I confronted Verizon about this, with multiple phone calls and letters (with a year's worth of bills and copies of checks I'd sent them paying each bill in time), pointing out that it was their error which caused all this. They refused to remove the bad credit report. I had to send copies of my documentation to all three credit agencies contesting it. I was hounded by a collections agency (funny how they were able to get my cell phone number from my old account when Verizon couldn't) who thankfully gave up after I sent them a copy of all the documentation as well. Unfortunately, they apparently sold the "debt" to another collections agency, and I had to do it all again a few months later. And then it happened again with another collections agency almost a year later.

So yeah, fixing the problem even after a few hours on the phone is comparatively good customer service.

Re:1 hour.

[Rockoon]

With any other ISP you could say that the system wasn't "designed", that instead it was "evolved" and that the edge cases need to be worked out from time to time. But Google Fiber isnt an old business with a long evolved billing system.. its a new business that should have had it right to begin with.

Also, any large business that wont take a small check is nonsense. They have a very significant business relationship with a bank that handles both their extremely large payroll as well as check deposits from customers. Depositing this small check should cost them literally nothing. Its just one in a large stack of checks that is handled under a contract dominated by their payroll department, not their accounts receivable department.

Re:1 hour.

[Grishnakh]

The answer isn't to keep using antiquated pieces of paper, or to use credit cards. The answer is to use bank transfers, which every developed country on the planet uses.

Re:1 hour.

[Grishnakh]

No, not exactly. This is an example of Google being totally incompetent in their billing (which will probably be fixed now, after this embarrassment), but once some humans finally got involved it was quickly fixed and rectified.

You're right, it's not an example of evil at all. But it is an example of some incompetence (because, as many others have pointed out here already, other companies have long had policies to not bother billing people for such trivial amounts; this isn't something new). So it proves Hanlon's Razor: "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence/stupidity".

Re:1 hour.

[Wycliffe]

The answer isn't to keep using antiquated pieces of paper, or to use credit cards. The answer is to use bank transfers, which every developed country on the planet uses.

None of the examples I gave would a bank transfer work better. To pay my local taxes, I do have the option of a bank transfer online but there is a fee for that too. There is no way to pay taxes in person without a check, a money order, or cash. A bank transfer for buying girl scout cookies or something similar is laughable. A bank transfer might work for paying your landlord if that person is set up for that but if the landlord only has a couple units, it's probably more expensive to set up than processing credit cards. Seriously, if checks are obsolete in other countries, what do most countries use for small (in size or frequency) person to person transfers?

Re:1 hour.

[Grishnakh]

Seriously, if checks are obsolete in other countries, what do most countries use for small (in size or frequency) person to person transfers?

Bank transfers, just like I said.

Just because the US is a backwards country full of religious morons that can't figure out how to implement free and easy bank transfers doesn't mean it can't be done.

Re:1 hour.

[david_thornley]

Bitcoin wouldn't be as successful if banks were efficient. If I can send someone in Germany 100 Euros in Bitcoin cheaper than I can use a bank, the bank is doing something seriously wrong.

Re:1 hour.

[david_thornley]

A collection agency buys a debt off a company, and then you owe the money to the agency. How would it be legal for them to jack it up arbitrarily? They don't have any agreement with you, you just owe them money.

Re:1 hour.

[rholtzjr]

You are correct. But it is more entertaining to trole the grammer nazis.

Re: 1 hour.

[leslie.satenstein]

Every business I know has a petty write-off amount. Typically, it is equal to the amount to invoice and go after the outstanding. Perhaps today this dollar amount is around three dollars.

there should be an auto pay flag and an under $1 f

[Joe_Dragon]

there should be an auto pay flag and an under $1 flag and if both then just drop it.

See the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google forgave the total, restored Tane's service in less than an hour and credited her account for $30"

If it where ATT, Comcast, or one of the other vultures, it would have more like:

"After only six weeks of stonewalling, paying 500$ penal^h^h^ service-unfucking-fee and signing a new 48 month contract, the service will be restored sometimes between Friday, 11:30 and December"

Re:See the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good, but the problem was created by Google in the first place. The customer paid everything up front. Google chose to do some screwy accounting such that they only credited her a bit at a time instead of applying the payment in full. Because of Google's funky accounting, the customer accrued extra interest in a time period well beyond when payment was made.

There's no denying Comcast, ATT et al would have found a way to make a more malignant mess of things but Google shouldn't have created this mess at all. Their deigning to waive the 12 cents is just hand-waving to cover up their accounting fsck-up.

Re:See the difference?

[blindseer]

the service will be restored sometimes between Friday, 11:30 and December

Of what year?

Re:See the difference?

[BlueStrat]

the service will be restored sometimes between Friday, 11:30 and December

Of what year?

Well, a google number of years from now, naturally!

Strat

Re: See the difference?

[LordKronos]

The thing is, googles accounting wasn't all that odd. Whats "odd" is the term of the service agreement colliding with the taxation change. The customer pays up front for a 7 year agreement. However, google is a publicly traded company, which means they have some strict requirements for how they account for and report receivables vs liabilities over the multiyear agreement. For accounting purposes they need to spread that lump some payment out over multiple year. A quick and simple solution is just to give the account a credit balance and continue to debit the account for the course of the contract. It makes perfectly reasonable sense if you don't consider the implications if a tax change somewhere down the road.

Re:See the difference?

[Hognoxious]

It's called revenue recognition, it's a standard thing. You don't normally do it through recurring payments like the article suggests, though; it's a purely internal transaction from deferred income to income.

Re:See the difference?

[Grishnakh]

Google isn't "baaaad" because of this; there's no indication of evil here. But there is indication of incompetence, because other companies have solved this problem ages ago, and don't inconvenience their customers because of utterly trivial debts. Yeah, it's nice they weren't complete bastards, and quickly fixed the problem and gave the customer a small bonus for her inconvenience, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

This is news because this is Google, a giant company that's supposedly an expert in software. (Have you ever tried going through one of their interviews?) One part of their company has been working on self-driving cars for some time now, and silly mistakes simply cannot be tolerated in the software controlling an automated car. If they can't even get this simple accounting thing right, how can we trust their car software to be safe?

Think about it.

[mcmonkey]

They cut her internet access. Than sent her an email about it.

These are the folks developing cars that drive themselves.

Re:Think about it.

[aktw]

Looks more like they sent emails and attempted phone contact before ultimately cutting her service. I know you're just looking to insult Google here, but at least don't be a complete fucking moron with your misleading post.

Re:Think about it.

[zamboni1138]

Google forgave the total, restored Tane's service in less than an hour and credited her account for $30

This is the headline! A telco forgiving debt? Unheard of! Credit to her account? Now you're just talking bullshit! This is a telecommunications company, after all. Restored service in less than an hour?! What in the hell are you smokin' son? No telco I know of can wrap their collective group think around the idea of less than an hour.

If this is how Google operates as a telco then my hats off to them. Yeah, sounds like their billing system has some issues, but customer service seems to be doing above average.

Re:Think about it.

[olsmeister]

AT&T forgave my dad's account $198 after he passed away and nobody realized he had his account set to autobill on a credit card that I had immediately canceled. Not a huge fan of theirs, but that was decent of them.

Re:Think about it.

[TheGratefulNet]

old joke, heard from the three stooges but probably pre-dates even them.

scene is a person reading a letter. last line of letter is:

"PS: if you didn't get this letter, let me know and I'll send it again"

lol

Re:Think about it.

[freeze128]

Google sent her SEVERAL emails and left SEVERAL voice messages, and she claimed she didn't see them. WTF? I mean, seriously, who signs up for Google fiber with a Yahoo email account?

Re:Think about it.

[Scarletdown]

Perhaps they accidentally poached some developers from their incompetent neighbors over in San Jose (aka eBay).

Re:Think about it.

[Scarletdown]

That is similar also to the old gag of after taking roll call, finishing with, "If you are not here, raise your hand."

Re:Think about it.

[Dutch Gun]

Someone who still sends checks in the mail instead of making an electronic payment.

Re:Think about it.

[antdude]

http://www.google.com/search?q... :P

Re: Think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the contract was void when he died. They've lost that battle in court enough times to preemptively avoid it now.

Re:Think about it.

[James_Duncan8181]

British Rail and National Rail are not even attempting the same role. BR was a vertically integrated organisation that got to maintain tracks and run trains. NR maintains the infrastructure for rail firms of various levels of competence who then proceed to cause reliability issues through feats like not managing to have enough drivers (hello Southern) and costing more in subsidies than BR did. So, well, you're slightly unfair to BR here.

Re:Think about it.

[Rockoon]

I do it all the time. Anything that isnt a monthly bill.

Re:Think about it.

[thegarbz]

They cut her internet access. Than sent her an email about it.

These are the folks developing cars that drive themselves.

I thought long and hard about this and still don't understand the problem. Are you suggesting there are people who have fibre to their houses but don't have at least 3 internet subscriptions for various devices in their houses from which they can read an email?

If this were some rural dial-up then sure, I'd sort of understand. But really this day and age your home internet going doing has no bearing on your ability to read your emails.

Re:Think about it.

[david_thornley]

We make payments for bills that are unlikely to change. We don't for variable bills (like credit cards). We're really not happy about the idea of giving someone else the ability to grab arbitrary amounts of money from our bank account.

Re:Think about it.

[ChoGGi]

Better than Rogers did for me up in Canada after my mom died. About the same debt ($173), Rogers didn't seem to be able to figure out what she's dead means. They called a bunch for a year or so, then they sold the debt (and had it returned) three separate times to collections agencies (while naturally bothering us in between agencies). All said it took about 6 years before they finally figured out what she's dead means...
It's pretty sad when a collections agency is the one acting more professional.

Re:Think about it.

[ChoGGi]

Someone who has their own email, and didn't want to use the google email I assume they made you use to signup?

Is it Even Legal

[wisnoskij]

Is it even legal to send out a revised bill asking for more tax money after a sale has been finalized and paid in full, because of some crazy internal accounting scheme that was probably not even public disclosed to the customers?

Re:Is it Even Legal

[glitch!]

That's a good question. I wonder about it because I have an Airbnb rental. Until August, I had to calculate and remit the sales and motel tax to the state. Okay, did that. But starting August, Airbnb stated that they were collecting the tax. Okay, fine. I called the state tax office, and they said I did not have to send in taxes August forward. But what about the guests who paid in full before August for stays after? Did they get another bill for the tax? Or did they just get forgotten? Dunno.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

Is it even legal to send out a revised bill

In my amateur opinion, I don't think that what Google did was legal.

Google Fiber, however, didn't treat her account that way. Instead, it spread the $300 out over one year, officially recognizing a dozen monthly payments of $25, plus taxes and fees.

And when the sales tax rate rose to 8.475 percent from 8.35 percent, Tane's account was hit for extra taxes.

So I understand the Google was accruing the revenue over the period, but that should only affect P/L calculations, not sales tax. IMHO, Google should have applied the sales tax to the full $300 up front.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[XanC]

They did apply the tax up front. What happened was the tax changed during the seven years, going up very slightly.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

They did apply the tax up front.

I don't think that you understand the meaning of "up front".

Google made a sale of $300. They should have applied the tax that was due on the day that the $300 payment was made. Tane did not pay in instalments.

In fact, I'll go further: I think that Google broke the law. Google collected sales tax at the time of the $300 payment and held onto it, instead of paying it to the state that quarter.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

Let's imagine that I buy a large appliance. Say, a refrigerator.

The store charges the taxes. I pay everything: the price of the appliance and the taxes.

12 months later, the sales tax rate increases. Do I now owe more sales taxes on my purchase of the appliance? Obviously, no. So how is this different from the situation in the article?

Re:Is it Even Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because paying upfront for a service is not the same as making a purchase. In the former case, there is a charge on a recurring basis, covered by a credit taken from the amount collected up-front. Google calculated what the total would be over the time period, and accepted that amount up-front. Then Kansas raised the tax rate, causing more money to be owed in total. It's not really that difficult to follow. It's all right there in the summary,

Re:Is it Even Legal

[houghi]

Yeah, Google has no clue how taxes work.
The thing is that they are not retarded, they are smart,

Disclaimer: I live in Belgium where different taxes for different goods need to be in the bill. Guess what? Companies like MacDonalds and any other are able to have POS machines all over Europe with all the different taxes and are able to handle it perfectly well.

The real issue is that punishment for companies who fuck over customers do not get punished. Accountability is a serious issue. Not only with companies, but also with police violence and politics, among other things.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[XanC]

You've proven my point by contradiction. This purchase is exactly NOT like buying a refrigerator.

From the state's perspective, this is an annual service, with annual taxes due. As I said before, the single-fee-up-front thing is between Google and the customer, and is a creation of Google, which the state has nothing to do with.

Google charged ALL the sales taxes for the seven year period up front as part of the $300. But during that interval, taxes went up slightly. So from the state's perspective, somebody then owed slightly more than was already being paid.

I'm not saying Google couldn't have handled this better, but your "they simply should have done this" solution is totally wrong; it was already what they were doing.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[david_thornley]

It sounds to me like Google made a sale of service, asking for a payment that included taxes. Since the customer didn't pay taxes, Google assumed that responsibility. Unless there was something in the sales agreement (which I have no way to see), variable costs (including taxes) are part of the risk Google runs while doing business.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[XanC]

Totally agreed. I'm not saying Google was in the right. Just got caught up in a reading comprehension argument with an idiot.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

From the state's perspective, this is an annual service, with annual taxes due.

Did Google bill the consumer every year? When did the sale actually take place?

The sale took place once, right at the beginning of the contract. The fact that Google chooses not to recognize the revenue immediately is not relevant to the fact that the sales taxes were incurred right at the beginning of the contract.

You don't like my refrigerator analogy? OK, let's modify it a bit:
I buy a new refrigerator. It's a special model, which is not immediately available. I pay 100% of the cost at the time I place the order. Between the time I order/pay and the time of delivery, the rate of sales tax goes up. Do I owe more sales tax? If you believe so, please explain how this is so.

I think that Google made a second mistake. The vendor is responsible for paying the sales tax. Thus, having already billed the customer for this item, Google had no right to go back and retroactively increase it. Google was responsible for any increase. Remember that the customer was not billed for and did not pay for any services after the increase in sales tax.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

Ah, the Google is infallible argument. Google can do no wrong.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[XanC]

Sigh. This isn't sales tax. The customer has telecom service each year for seven years. Every year that he has telecom service, a tax must be paid. Google collected the tax up front as part of the $300 and pays it every year. They're already doing what you said they should do.

Your "second mistake" is THE mistake. That's what the whole article is all about. That's my point.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[whoever57]

Sigh. This isn't sales tax.

Sigh. Try RTFA!

And when the sales tax rate rose to 8.475 percent from 8.35 percent, Tane's account was hit for extra taxes.

See that? "sales tax"! What part of "sales tax" do you not understand?

The tax wasn't even due to the service: it was a one-time installation fee:

Tane also paid the total upfront. $300 to connect, plus $25.08 for taxes and fees. Transaction done. Free for seven years.

Google collected the tax up front as part of the $300 and pays it every year.

It wasn't an annual tax. Google spread the $300 cost over 1 year, not 7 years.

Try reading the fine article. It might help to prevent people thinking that your reading and comprehension skills are lacking.

Re:Is it Even Legal

[houghi]

I did not say that. I even implied that they know the taxes so well that they do not need to pay them and save several millions per year.

What happened has nothing to do with not being aware of how taxes work.

The only thing I'm feeling here

[phantomfive]

The only thing I'm feeling here is jealousy, because even if it has weird administrative problems, Google fiber is waaaay better than what I can get where I live. They gave her a $30 credit? Try getting that from Comcast..........

Re:there should be an auto pay flag and an under $

[Zaelath]

No need to wipe it, you keep it there and only issue invoices for > $10

Invoices are what go "overdue", not balances.

Article Blames; I Praise

[cervesaebraciator]

The tone of the headline and text is critical. But if there is a story here at all, it's how decent Google acted about it. We should read this, not as it was intended, but as an article of praise for Google.

Comcast, TWC, Spectrum, or whatever you are now, take notice. This is how to get people to like you: when you find your policies and automated systems have done something absurd, sacrifice the small change, fix the problem quickly, shell out a few courtesy bucks, and enjoy free publicity and good will.

Re: Article Blames; I Praise

[easyTree]

When you find there's bad publicity, shell out.

This probably happened to others.

Re:Article Blames; I Praise

[Ichijo]

But if there is a story here at all, it's how decent Google acted about it.

No, I don't think cutting off her internet for a 12 cent bill is decent at all, especially when she had already paid upfront in full.

Re: Article Blames; I Praise

[easyTree]

Meh. Facts shmacts.

Re:Article Blames; I Praise

[cervesaebraciator]

You misunderstand me. Organizations set up systems, whether by automation or by policies individuals within the organization are compelled to enact, in order to ensure consistent, efficient, and fair application of policy. A rule under such systems might include the requirement that a balance carried over X number of months will result in termination. Such a straightforward rule would be used by about any company, inasmuch as no company will want to be caught in an argument over defining precisely where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off.

The application of such policies, however, as rational (in the Weberian sense) as it might be, will also result in particular absurdities. I call them decent because they addressed the absurd case very likely as soon as a human with the necessary prerogatives saw it. What's more, they addressed the case in the right way.

I should add that I'm not a Google fan-boy. I just think that praise should be given when it's due if we want to see more of such behavior.

Re:Article Blames; I Praise

[Ichijo]

A rule under such systems might include the requirement that a balance carried over X number of months will result in termination. Such a straightforward rule would be used by about any company, inasmuch as no company will want to be caught in an argument over defining precisely where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off.

It's very interesting how you think companies don't want to argue about "where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off" but you don't think they mind arguing about how many months a balance carried over would result in termination.

Very interesting indeed.

But you have a valid point about applying the zero-one-infinity rule to collections. The simplest sensible solution is to set the cutoff at the price of a postage stamp. Maybe add in the cost of the envelope, plus processing costs both ways, to avoid losing money collecting on the debt. Google has computers that could figure out the costs, so determining the cutoff should be as simple as a database lookup.

I call them decent because they addressed the absurd case very likely as soon as a human with the necessary prerogatives saw it. What's more, they addressed the case in the right way.

You keep forgetting that they created the absurd case in the first place. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

At least it wasn't found on the credit report...

[cdreimer]

One year I pulled my annual credit report to see if there was any unusual activity and discovered that I had a three-year-old delinquent utility bill from a previous residence. I called up the utility company and found out that I owed a princely sum of $3.75. Even though they had my current address on record, I never got the final final bill. They also refused to remove the item from my credit report since their reporting of my account being delinquent was accurate. So I paid the bill off, filed statements with the credit bureaus, and waited for the item to fall off my credit report.

Re:there should be an auto pay flag and an under $

[Kjella]

Well, that would make me try to game the system. Say my bill is $30 each month. I'll pay $29.01, every month, just to get the free $0.99.

Every system I know that works like this will add the outstanding balance on the next bill, so it'd be $30.99 the next month. Also that hanging dollar may prevent them from closing out your account until the balance is paid in full so it may not be a free dollar, just the free loan of a dollar. Yay.

The perils of total automation.

[Gravis Zero]

Google has become one of those cautionary tales about why automating absolutely everything is a bad idea. Automation is great when it works but when there is a bug in the system, it comes to a grinding halt.

Re:The perils of total automation.

[BoRegardless]

Same for Paypal. GoDaddy tried to bill me for something I hadn't ordered nor did I have the funds in my PayPal account, but PayPal decided I was no longer a worthy customer. Don't know how to resolve it.

Google feelgood story

[PopeRatzo]

I don't care one way or the other about Google, but they did one thing nice: My mobile phone is with Project Fi. The service is great and the price is right, but it's basically like any other mobile provider.

Anyway, after Hurricane Harvey, I got an email from Google noting that my billing address was in Houston and so they gave me a $20 credit and unlimited data for the month. I mean it's not a lot of money but it gave me a positive feeling about the company. Several other companies sent me special deals and other little goodies for having lived through a hurricane, but Google was the only one who actually dropped cash directly on me.

Re:Google feelgood story

[BlueStrat]

I don't care one way or the other about Google, but they did one thing nice: My mobile phone is with Project Fi. The service is great and the price is right, but it's basically like any other mobile provider.

Anyway, after Hurricane Harvey, I got an email from Google noting that my billing address was in Houston and so they gave me a $20 credit and unlimited data for the month. I mean it's not a lot of money but it gave me a positive feeling about the company. Several other companies sent me special deals and other little goodies for having lived through a hurricane, but Google was the only one who actually dropped cash directly on me.

I agree, that was a very good response from Google. Above and beyond anything I'd heard about from other ISPs/telcos/cablecos.

I'm glad to hear you made it through the storm. I hope any damages to your property were minimal.

You and I may have very different ideological/political views, but we are people and fellow-countrymen before politics. We have far more in common than those things which separate us. Best wishes for the post-storm recovery.

Strat

Re:Google feelgood story

[PopeRatzo]

Thanks, Strat. We have since moved to the lovely Central Coast in the People's Republic of California. I liked Houston, but the weather there is not really fit for humans. If I were younger and looking to make a bunch of money quick, Houston might be more appealing. Fortunately, we got out safely and with most of our belongings intact. The people there are great and the food is out of this world. But for now, a cool, dry, beautiful place near the ocean with all the other snowflakes is just what the doctor ordered. I may even learn to surf, get a medical marijuana card and join the senior auxiliary of Antifa.

And we definitely have more in common than what separates us. I've even owned a blue strat at one point in my life, (though now, I have a tobacco burst '64 with a white pickguard). When water started dripping from our ceiling fan, the guitar was the first thing I reached for to carry to safety. Then, my wife and pistols and my signed copy of the Wisdom of Chairman Mao. OK, I'm joking about the last one.

Re:Google feelgood story

[yzf750]

You know, I bitched about AT&T taking longer than every other mobile carrier to waive overage fees for Harvey victims. Then they waived my overage which was not caused by Harvey (I was on vacation in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and using GPS for several hours every day.) Got back on the 26th just in time for the flooding, no damage here either, glad both of y'all are good too. Anyways, I would be more than happy to pay the overage fee, but I am sure AT&T will just apply it to my next bill instead...

Re:Google feelgood story

[BlueStrat]

Thanks, Strat. We have since moved to the lovely Central Coast in the People's Republic of California. I liked Houston, but the weather there is not really fit for humans. If I were younger and looking to make a bunch of money quick, Houston might be more appealing. Fortunately, we got out safely and with most of our belongings intact. The people there are great and the food is out of this world. But for now, a cool, dry, beautiful place near the ocean with all the other snowflakes is just what the doctor ordered. I may even learn to surf, get a medical marijuana card and join the senior auxiliary of Antifa.

Hah! Glad you've found a place to relocate to. Please don't take it personally if I still occasionally wish for CA to slide into the Pacific. :P

And we definitely have more in common than what separates us. I've even owned a blue strat at one point in my life, (though now, I have a tobacco burst '64 with a white pickguard).

Nice! My 'go-tos' I reach for first these days are a 2004 G&L Tribute Legacy strat and an original (though I did upgrade the stop-tailpiece/bridge saddle plate & kept the original) '05 Squier "'51" (funky-looking, but a real 'sleeper' tone machine!). Between those two instruments, a minimalist pedalboard, and a good tube amp I designed & built myself, there's not many iconic guitar sounds I can't cover.

By the way, the "blue" doesn't refer to a color. Any guitar I pick up is "blue" regardless of the finish. ;)

Guess I'll go read my copy of Mein Kampf and polish my brass swastikas, you have a great day! LOL!

Strat

Re:Cutting internet access

[tdelaney]

Or you require internet access to do your job.

Re:Better than Comcast

[Dog-Cow]

So sue Comcast for the maximum possible in small claims court. They will pay it because you can show harm by being denied a mortgage, and they can't drag lawyers in to obfuscate the issue.

Re:This one's not so bad

[Scarletdown]

After Google re-connects her account, she should retroactively check her e-mail and have the error corrected so as to not have been disconnected.

And how, praytell, could she have corrected the error?

The problem was caused by the taxes going up, which Google passed on to their customers instead of absorbing it themselves. That caused her to owe a whopping 12 cents, for which Google had no mechanism for her to pay, other than making a trip in person to Mountain View to hand over a dime and two pennies.

It was completely out of her hands.

BeauHD is an indochimp!

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST KIDDING! In all seriousness though, he's an illiterate fluoride-head millenial who is in dire need of a full lobotomy or brain transplant. If he doesn't get at least the former which would take him from insect to potato intelligence, Slashdot will be doomed by his non-stories.
 
DOOMED, I tell ya!

Re: BeauHD is an indochimp!

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, if this had been Comcast, they would have a Lien on her house.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:there should be an auto pay flag and an under $

[Hognoxious]

This works in reverse too. I knew a guy who had a postbox embedded in the front of his house (it was there when he bought it;
probably installed in Victorian times) and the Royal Mail used to pay him rent. It was really just a token amount and it was less than the threshold so they'd just accumulate it it and send him a payment when it got big enough.

Not accepting the payment?

[thegarbz]

Tane tried to pay but Google wouldn't take checks for less than $10.

Most of the world doesn't take checks for more than $10 either. What kind of archaic payment methods do you use in the USA? Don't you have a bill payment system tied to the banking system that can simply take care of such thing with a simple key press?

If I need to send 1c to a company to pay a bill I just jump on my banking website, click pay bill, type in a biller code and 1c and done.

The only point where this fails is when they owe me money. Then they normally revert to standard methods like bank transfer or credit card refunds.

Re:Not accepting the payment?

[stealth_finger]

Tane tried to pay but Google wouldn't take checks for less than $10.

Most of the world doesn't take checks for more than $10 either. What kind of archaic payment methods do you use in the USA? Don't you have a bill payment system tied to the banking system that can simply take care of such thing with a simple key press?

If I need to send 1c to a company to pay a bill I just jump on my banking website, click pay bill, type in a biller code and 1c and done.

The only point where this fails is when they owe me money. Then they normally revert to standard methods like bank transfer or credit card refunds.

When I last moved I switched from BT to virgin. BT sent me a check for £1.15 which I cashed because fuck 'em.

Re:Not accepting the payment?

[thegarbz]

When I last moved from my ISP they kept sending me a letter saying that my account was $1.50 in credit. They sent me that letter every month for over 2 years. That's how to fuck em. Let it cost them.

Re: What's the problem?

[Hognoxious]

Ah, but is it retroactive? It depends on whether the tax point is the date of payment or the date of provision.

The Nobody's Home problem

[Applehu Akbar]

A flaw in so much online commerce is that when something goes wrong, there is no way of reaching a human if your problem is not covered by the FAQ.

Re:At least it wasn't found on the credit report..

[SuiteSisterMary]

Sorry, you're confusing me with someone else.

Canadian-like typing detected.

Google is not interested in Fiber optics

[basicprimitives]

Guys, Google's business is about indexing web content and selling content related ads and reports. The following is a list of technologies which are threats to Google's business: - Application stores: Android, iOS and Windows desktop applications makes Google search engine irrelevant. - Single Page JavaScript applications like React have no entry point via URL, so React applications don't support indexing of web sites by Google. That is why Google pushes AngularJS which in turn support indexing by Google. The only problem AngularJS did not support native applications support for a long time, so a result React gained in popularity significantly. - Video streams. This is major threat to web crawling and indexing. They will evolve into individual entertainment services. We will play computer games on-line via receiving video streams, instead of rendering content on client machine using expensive 3D graphics cards, this is going to be major push towards rendering content per user. VR will gain in popularity as well as soon as video stream is going to be rendered on server instead of current client side rendering. - Virtual assistants will transform into video assistants as well. Web sites will be replaced with video assistant. So all the operations at web sites and services will go via communication with virtual video assistant. Video stream provides ultimate flexibility in terms of usage of technologies at server side. It will bring death to JavaScript, HTML and as a result to Google Search business as well. So they deliberately killed Fiber network in Kansas, since it accelerates introduction of video based technologies over internet and imminent death of Google Search business. Sorry Google, but you are as evil as Microsoft now.

Who cares

[UsuallyReasonable]

Stuff that doesn't matter.

of course

[roc97007]

> Google forgave the total, restored Tane's service in less than an hour and credited her account for $30, reports Kansas City News.

...because someone at Google realized the company was being a dick.

Just kidding. Because someone at Google realized this was going to go viral and they needed to get in front of it.

Re:there should be an auto pay flag and an under $

[Grishnakh]

Well, that would make me try to game the system. Say my bill is $30 each month. I'll pay $29.01, every month, just to get the free $0.99.

That's very simple to fix. You put in a threshold, below which the company won't bother harassing the customer for the amount due (perhaps $5 or $10). But you never actually forgive the debt, you just hold it over. So if someone like you tries to game the system by underpaying every month, you won't get away with it: the past-due amount will show up on the next bill, and be paid by your latest payment, leaving a slowly-increasing past-due amount. At some point (~10 months maybe), that amount will be greater than the threshold, and now they'll threaten to cut off your service if you don't pay.

That way, the company eventually gets its money from people who remain customers, since most such cases are simply where there was a slight shortfall, so it's easier to just hold it over and add it to their next bill, which most customers will simply pay in full. For the smaller number of cases where the customer is no longer a customer (it was their last bill perhaps), then the company will eventually drop it after some time since it's not worth it to pursue the person for such a trivial amount.

Re:This one's not so bad

[Grishnakh]

Whoosh

Re:This one's not so bad

[Scarletdown]

Oops. I think my sarcometer was a bit off that day. Yeah, that's it. :D

not so newsworthy

[Khashishi]

Any big company is going to have people fall through the cracks. There isn't anything particularly evil or nerdy about this.

bullshit story

[giggles778]

it must be a really slow news day to worry about what amounts to a hiccup in service