Woman hit with $200,000 cellphone bill

On Monday we reported that the FCC had reached an agreement with the wireless phone industry. Starting next year, the agreement would require wireless carriers to inform customers if they are going over their pre-set monthly contract limits for voice, texting and data use. If there was ever an example of why such a system is needed, look no further than the recent case of Florida resident Celina Aarons.

Miam's WSVN web site reports that Aarons has a cell phone account from T-Mobile and that normally her monthly bill is around $175. But recently she experienced a huge and unwelcome shock when she got a bill for T-Mobile for $201,005.44. The kicker is that the bill amount wasn't a computer error. What happened? Aarons recently put one of her brother, Shamirs, on her cell phone plan. Shamir happens to be mute deaf and has to communicate over the phone via text messaging.

Shamir decided to go to Canada for a long two week vacation but forgot to turn off his data roaming feature on his cell phone. As a result, the 2,000 text messages he sent, along with the downloading of videos while he was in Canada, caused Aarons' bill to legally skyrocket.

When contacted, T-Mobile claimed that it had in fact texted Shamir about the higher texting rates but apparently those texts were missed. However, it did have mercy on Aarons, It decided to lower her bill to just $2,500 and gave her six months in order to pay it back.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Stores offer up free Windows Phone 7 devices

Next Story

New hard drive platters could lead to big jump in storage space

91 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Jeepers?! People are still happy to pay more than $150 for having a phone, and some basic service - that's a little sad. What's even sadder is that prepaid, the only real way to control the surprise element has been around this country for a long time; tracfone has been touting cheap prepaid mobility for more than a decade and a half. I'm not saying that everyone should rush, and get the latest feature phone, but there is a big market for people needing very basic cellphones too, and for that market there's precious little to choose from - again it's almost only tracfones SVC brand that offers a product for seniors. At least if the carriers do carry out thir voluntary changes, then seniors might have access to a safer way of having a cellphone.

What happened? Aarons recently put one of her brother on the contract

so HE didn't sign **** nor read anything about roaming costs

But in this day and age of globalisation there shouldn't be anything known as International DATA roaming its just a crock that gives companies like Tmobile the right to rip you off

They would have reduced the bill cus it costs a carrier nothing to send a text cus it piggybacks on a voice signal or something just an extremely small processing fee so they'd still be making a big profit

Well T-Mobile UK must be doing something right. As out of all the tine I've been outside the country. They turn off data roaming automatically. & u just get a prompt with all coatings when u try to access data. They even advise u to turn off vmail whilst abroad as that charges u for all messages received b4 u have listened to it.

Ok - this may happen abroad. But I don't see how European cell phone users can be "had". The ECJ ruled that all mobile phone operators MUST cap roaming charges at 40MB, after which you have to expressly give your consent to remove the cap - so you must know what you're doing.

I have quite a number of mobile users on our networks and have never had this kind of problem. It's quite easy ---- if you're roaming, don't use the phone/data connection like you would when you're at home!!

In addition...

orange.co.uk/roaming
o2.co.uk/abroad
t-mobile.com/international
att.com/international
virginmobile.com.au/international-rates

No user can say they were never told. Everyone can find it on ALL networks in ALL countries.

From a business point of view we have made a few changes to our roaming services & charges.

If you are a first time traveller with a smartphone or you have recently changed from one device to another, we will offer to adjust your invoices based on if you had a roaming bundle on in advance.

This service is however not available for those who have been travelling before and had data roaming charges or for those who have gone from one type of handset to another (e.g. iphone 3gs to iphone 4) with previous charges.

In relation to the first comment. In order to use over £45 in charges abroad we send you a text message once you hit the EU regulatory cap of 16MB and you must reply to it to turn off this limit. This is solely done on the device and the operator has no other way of removing this limit.

I understand that roaming is expensive but what I don't understand is how American phone contracts can cost you 175$ a month.. What are those phone companies doing? That's crazy.
I get 3000 text messages, 3000 minutes, and unlimited date for 20€ in Austria. I can't imagine what one would get for 175....

singularity0821 said,
I understand that roaming is expensive but what I don't understand is how American phone contracts can cost you 175$ a month.. What are those phone companies doing? That's crazy.
I get 3000 text messages, 3000 minutes, and unlimited date for 20€ in Austria. I can't imagine what one would get for 175....

It costs me $155 a month for four lines, unlimited text, and two data plans. This was a family plan, not an individual.

Iridium said,
It depends on the type of phone she has. If it was an iPhone then im sure she has the change to spare.

What???

My last phone, a blackberry, cost just as much as my iPhone 4 3 weeks ago, $200. Then I bought my girlfriend an iPhone 4 2 weeks later and it was $150... I don't have 200K to spare? Whats with your statement? Ignorant, clueless? Every phone available cost similar amounts when you're dealing with the big carriers and their smart phones. Blackberry's, Androids, Windows Phones... $100-250 maybe? You likely pay for it in your contract, sure, but you'd pay the same amount per month if you paid the non-contract price for a phone, which most phones cost as much as a good laptop that way.. I just don't understand where your coming from... 200K would buy a decent house in the US right now, no one here would pay that amount for 1 month of a cell phone bill, even our super rich would go ape **** on the carrier for being such douc* bags. As you can see, they reduced it from 200K to 2400, obviously T-Mobiles profit were damn large, and likely still will be at their reduced price.

Just saying that was a really ignorant comment... or sarcastic, maybe even stupid...

Jeeezz you Apple people respond more like cult followers everyday. Apple is a company not a god. Oh sorry man forgot the USA was the only country in the world...... In Australia people watch way too much american broadcasting and they see people with iPhones not understanding the price barriers to phones are not as high in the states as to what they are here they run and and get them. Owning an iPhone is all about a high expense fasion statment. Contract for iPhone is higher than equivalent android and WP7 phones and unlike the US, contractless sim card based prepaid phones are popular and the iPhone will set one back $799. http://store.apple.com/au/brow...e/shop_iphone/family/iphone

The article says that this person sent 2000 text messages AND downloaded videos. Everybody just mentions the messages but there is no information on how much data he actually transferred.
Plus, it doesn't matter if cell phone companies make a lot of money out of text messages, etc., and just because they may be expensive doesn't mean this person shouldn't pay or that the company is "rapping" anyone.
When you sign up for a service (any service for that matter) you agree to many things, and in this case, I'm pretty sure all the information was there. Nobody put a gun to this persons head and forced them to sign up. There are alsom at least 3 other companies to choose from if T-Mobile isn't satisfactory.
Americans are too spoiled with the whole: "The customer is always right" expression.
It's simple: You want a service or product, you sign a contract or ToS agreeing to what it says, simple. Don't come crying later.
This person, not only "forgot" to turn off data, but also downloaded videos while he was abroad.
Unless he got his phone stolen and couldn't report that to T-Mobile in time and somebody used it, then I cannot see why they should lower the bill, at all.
If you can't afford going over the limit, get a prepaid plan and you'll never spend more than that.
However, many cell phone companies do let you adjust a spending limit for that period. Not sure T-Mobile though.

It's absolutely irrelevant how much data he downloaded. The most expensive unlimited everything cellular plan in Canada wouldn't even come close to thinking about reaching that cost. The simple fact is that the service is not that costly to provide and the telcos are colluding to screw their customers whenever they think they can get away with it.

random_n said,
It's absolutely irrelevant how much data he downloaded. The most expensive unlimited everything cellular plan in Canada wouldn't even come close to thinking about reaching that cost. The simple fact is that the service is not that costly to provide and the telcos are colluding to screw their customers whenever they think they can get away with it.

It's absolutely irrelevant how much it costs a cell phone company to transmit data. Nobody forced this person to get a phone line with them. And when she did, she knew the prices.
I could open a restaurant and charge $500 for a cheeseburger that costs me $3. It's then up to the customers to decide if they want to pay it or not and this person agreed to it.

gabito said,
When you sign up for a service (any service for that matter) you agree to many things

Yes but you don't agree to pay 200 000.

I'm sorry nobody agrees to pay 200 000+ unless they buy an house or something like that.

People who say she agreed to pay 200 000 are wrong. She never did.

LaP said,

Yes but you don't agree to pay 200 000.

I'm sorry nobody agrees to pay 200 000+ unless they buy an house or something like that.

People who say she agreed to pay 200 000 are wrong. She never did.

True, but you do agree to pay for any and all charges not included in your plan. There is a section on international data roaming which spells all the charges the user will incur. No contract spells out what you will pay each month, it says what your monthly rate will be plus any additional overages, roaming charges, taxes and fees.

RangerLG said,

True, but you do agree to pay for any and all charges not included in your plan. There is a section on international data roaming which spells all the charges the user will incur. No contract spells out what you will pay each month, it says what your monthly rate will be plus any additional overages, roaming charges, taxes and fees.

RangerLG said,

True, but you do agree to pay for any and all charges not included in your plan. There is a section on international data roaming which spells all the charges the user will incur. No contract spells out what you will pay each month, it says what your monthly rate will be plus any additional overages, roaming charges, taxes and fees.

Exactly, many are saying :"yes, but you don't agree to pay 200k when signing up". Of course it won't say that. What it does say is something like: "$0.50 for each exceeded minute..."
I don't know how they can be any clearer than this.
Some people seem to think they have to explicitly specify the amounts, like :"You may me able to pay $500k if you keep on downloading porn when you're on your vacation in Tahiti".

I can't believe people are this stupid. Just sum up the minutes or mb you exceeded and that's what you should and are going to pay. That's what is says in the contract.
Unbelievable.

RangerLG said,

True, but you do agree to pay for any and all charges not included in your plan. There is a section on international data roaming which spells all the charges the user will incur. No contract spells out what you will pay each month, it says what your monthly rate will be plus any additional overages, roaming charges, taxes and fees.

It doesn't matter that the contract says what you are going to pay for overuse.

No court will ask someone to pay 200 000 for txt msg. T Mobile did not have any choice but to reduce to bill to a reasonable amount.

It's just simple business ethics. Blindly defending ANYTHING simply because it's legal is why there are so many problems with everything. I guess if T-mobile made it legal to rape your sister if you go over your data cap, the same simpletons would be here defending how "you should have known better and she deserved it". Also the analogies are ridiculous, stop watching Fox, it's killing everyone. ;-)

Hahaiah said,
It's just simple business ethics. Blindly defending ANYTHING simply because it's legal is why there are so many problems with everything. I guess if T-mobile made it legal to rape your sister if you go over your data cap, the same simpletons would be here defending how "you should have known better and she deserved it". Also the analogies are ridiculous, stop watching Fox, it's killing everyone. ;-)

Not really. Rape is a federal crime which supersedes any business contract or ToS. So even if you did sign something like that, there is no chance they could enforce it. Apples and oranges. So no, T-Mobile can't "make it legal" to rape your sister.

gabito said,

Not really. Rape is a federal crime which supersedes any business contract or ToS. So even if you did sign something like that, there is no chance they could enforce it. Apples and oranges. So no, T-Mobile can't "make it legal" to rape your sister.

A contract between 2 entities needs to be fair for both side or else it can be declared void.

Nobody agrees to pay 200 000 for txt msg. You can't say it's written in the TOS then it's legal to do it. If it is unfair for the user (which it is here) then it can be declared void.

It's not because you blindly agree to something that it makes it set in stone.

If a company write somewhere in a TOS than i agree to give then 200 000 and then i sign this TOS no court will rule that i need to give 200 000 to this company. Nobody agrees to blindly give 200 000.

gabito said,

Not really. Rape is a federal crime which supersedes any business contract or ToS. So even if you did sign something like that, there is no chance they could enforce it. Apples and oranges. So no, T-Mobile can't "make it legal" to rape your sister.

Simply making a point, next time I'll make one just for you that doesn't require any special thinking. Jesus.

Hahaiah said,

Simply making a point, next time I'll make one just for you that doesn't require any special thinking. Jesus.

I knew what you were trying to do, and your "point" is not valid. If the contract is legal, signing it is legal and you therefore agree to everything it says in it. Can you understand that? I guess not.

Look man, if you go to a beauty salon and it says that charge $20 for waxing with 5 strips of wax included, and $1 for each extra strip, and you use 10. Guess how much you are going to pay?

I guess you would say something like: "oh, sorry, I didn't agree to pay $25. It does not say $25 in the ad. It says $20 + $1 x 5, but hey, that's different!"

Edited by gabito, Oct 20 2011, 11:46pm :

gabito said,

I knew what you were trying to do, and your "point" is not valid. If the contract is legal, signing it is legal and you therefore agree to everything it says in it. Can you understand that? I guess not.

Look man, if you go to a beauty salon and it says that charge $20 for waxing with 5 strips of wax included, and $1 for each extra strip, and you use 10. Guess how much you are going to pay?

I guess you would say something like: "oh, sorry, I didn't agree to pay $25. It does not say $25 in the ad. It says $20 + $1 x 5, but hey, that's different!"

I'm sorry but are you just dense or just enjoy being argumentative. The point is completely valid because it mocks the lack of simply being REASONABLE. It's been said here already many different ways, if you still think a $200k phone bill for any reason is OK (in this situation so it's clear for you) then you'll just never see it for what it is and the greedy corporations love you for it. Please don't breed.

Hahaiah said,

I'm sorry but are you just dense or just enjoy being argumentative. The point is completely valid because it mocks the lack of simply being REASONABLE. It's been said here already many different ways, if you still think a $200k phone bill for any reason is OK (in this situation so it's clear for you) then you'll just never see it for what it is and the greedy corporations love you for it. Please don't breed.

Right, so people like you that sign a contract and then complain should breed.
I NEVER said anything about 200k being reasonable or not. What I said is that if sign a contract, then don't complain about it.
So basically, what you are saying is that you sign a contract and if something you don't like happens, then you complain.
Dude, if the contract says they are going to charge you X for roaming, and you are NOT OK with that, then DON'T sign it. IF you sign it, then don't go to them crying. If the contract says: "You'll be charged $1 for every minute if you go over your 100 minute plan", then if you go over 50 minutes, guess how much you are going to pay? IT SAYS SO IN THE CONTRACT WHICH YOU SIGNED.
What are you 16 or something? Companies are in business to make a profit, not to give you free or floor price services. Sum that up with the fact that NOBODY forces you to sign ANYTHING.
IF you don't like the contract, then hop on your bicycle and go to the arcades.
Contracts are there for a reason, not just a piece of paper so you can put your beautiful signature on. Why then hell do you think they exist in the first place?
Don't like, then don't sign it. Period.
I hope you are not trying to discuss that telco makes a lot of money and they should charge whatever YOU think they should charge. They charge what the F they want, and it's up to the future customer/client to agree to pay for it or not.

Damn, YOU are dense indeed.


sergiogarcia9 said,
You have to admit that it was nice of T-Mobile to let her off with only 2500 bucks.

Nice ?

The fact is T-Mobile did not have any choice but to lower it.

I'm torn on this. Part of it the user's fault for ignoring the notification and not reading terms. On the other hand, and SMS is piggybacked on a signal already being sent to the tower so it costs the provider nothing to send and receive. The fact that it was lowered also shows the pure profit these messages produce.

Rohdekill said,
Am I the only one thinking that even her monthly bill of $175 is insane?!

That's over $2,000.00 a year for a freakin' phone!!

She has other people on her plan. It isn't 1 line, it is multiple lines.

Rohdekill said,
Am I the only one thinking that even her monthly bill of $175 is insane?!

That's over $2,000.00 a year for a freakin' phone!!

Um my phone bill are around €100 and most of my friends to so $175 is quite normal, in Europe anyways.

What I really want to know is how much did their usage cost T-Mobile.

The fact they went as low as $2,500 tells me it's even less than that for them still to make a profit.

Nice to see that they've lowered the bill so much.

In Europe the cell phone providers must text-message the clients if the data usage gets over €59 or something, then the client has to write back and confirm if he wants the data transfer enabled further.

The FCC shouldn't have backed down with their proposal just because some of the big service provider players decided that they would volunteer notifying the user. No, there has already been a definitive pattern of abuse and these service providers now have track record. FCC should do their job and regulate them instead of sleeping with them.

Shadrack said,
The FCC shouldn't have backed down with their proposal just because some of the big service provider players decided that they would volunteer notifying the user. No, there has already been a definitive pattern of abuse and these service providers now have track record. FCC should do their job and regulate them instead of sleeping with them.

+10000 !!!!!!

Carlos of Smeg said,
If they can afford to drop a $200,000 bill to $2500, they are clearly making an enormous profit on data charges...

yep. like i say cell phone companies are already getting away with murder at there borderline extortionate rates as it is. people paying $100 (per month) in some cases for a cell phone, regardless of how fancy it is with features, should not cost that much for (unlimited) SERVICE. cell phones should MAX out @ $60-70 although $50 (one way or the other) sounds more reasonable to me for a fancy phone with unlimited etc. and your more very basic phones should be even less like $30 or so. that would be more fair but instead they got it to where the basic phones are already at a higher price and the fancy ones just get even worse from there basically.

i would just like to see how much it costs them to what they are making... ill bet the gap is extreme to the point it's beyond reasonable profits for them.

I think its actually scandalous that a company would let anyone run up that amount on a bill without either contacting the user or just cut them off until a good reason was found as to why this was happening.

$201,005.44 is an astronomical amount to pay, surely alarm bells must have rung at T-Mobile ....but then again all they care for is profit I guess. Hopefully this will go to court and some laws will be changed as an outcome of this.

Edit : Laws that apply globally i meant and not just in the states.

These service providers have your credit on file. They have a metric to figure out how much they are willing to loan you right there, and for the vast majority of people it would come no where close to $200,000. It is straight up abuse. It is the same type of abuse that bankers handing out junk home mortgages out to people that really couldn't afford them.

Thought I should weigh in on this since I see too many stupid comments blaming the user. Many companies make huge profits from fees like this. They could very easily eliminate the problem but don't because, yes it makes them money. Not everyone is a super genius like some of you here, many are practically retarded, so I guess that makes it OK to take advantage of them right?
The correct solution is to give the user control over knowing and preventing this action through a variety of very easy to implement methods. THEN you can shift blame entirely to the consumer. Until then, you corporate defenders still make me want to throw up a little every time I have the misfortune of knowing your thoughts.

T-Moblie isn't taking adavantage of anyone here and yes its the users fault for not taken proper steps. I bet T-Moblie has account spending limits that the users can set up to protect them from over charges, if they do and the users doesn't use it. Who's fault is it? the users, since they didn't use it.

Tender Foot said,
T-Moblie isn't taking adavantage of anyone here and yes its the users fault for not taken proper steps. I bet T-Moblie has account spending limits that the users can set up to protect them from over charges, if they do and the users doesn't use it. Who's fault is it? the users, since they didn't use it.

I'm sorry, but any $200,000 bill for a month of service is criminal on the part of T-Mobile. I mean, come on... nobody would loan a person $200,000 with absolutely nothing to show for it because chances are a person's credit wouldn't be good enough. This is abuse, and although we agreed to the abuse by signing onto their ToS they intentionally make that long and unreadable in order to take advantage of people. Just like Hahaiah has pointed out, many people are not very smart and it isn't OK for companies to take advantage of them. We should hold these companies in higher regards than street con-artists.

Shadrack said,

I'm sorry, but any $200,000 bill for a month of service is criminal on the part of T-Mobile. I mean, come on... nobody would loan a person $200,000 with absolutely nothing to show for it because chances are a person's credit wouldn't be good enough. This is abuse, and although we agreed to the abuse by signing onto their ToS they intentionally make that long and unreadable in order to take advantage of people. Just like Hahaiah has pointed out, many people are not very smart and it isn't OK for companies to take advantage of them. We should hold these companies in higher regards than street con-artists.

Being not very smart isn't an excuse and shouldn't be used as one. Cops don't care if you didn't know the speed limit when the speed limit is posted in huge letters. Besides they are bound by a contract that they signed regardless of how some of you try to justified your case. Plus as always internationl rates are always higher and that's what jacked the bill up.

Shadrack said,

they intentionally make that long and unreadable in order to take advantage of people

Well, how many times in your life to you sign up for a service such as this that you can't take the time to read? If you are in such a hurry, then go some other day.
So, basically what you are saying is that if you have a problem like this one, then your excuse will be :"Oh sorry, it was just too long to read so I just signed it in order to get my phone as quickly as possible to call Charlene and ask her out.".
Man, you are brilliant. Let me know where you live so I can ask for your autograph and give you some blank checks.

Tender Foot said,
T-Moblie isn't taking adavantage of anyone here and yes its the users fault for not taken proper steps. I bet T-Moblie has account spending limits that the users can set up to protect them from over charges, if they do and the users doesn't use it. Who's fault is it? the users, since they didn't use it.

I've NEVER been told about setting the limits for my account. I happen to know about them because I'm tech savvy. Most people aren't particularly tech savvy. I have asked Verizon if I can have text messages turned off at the limit and they said they can't do that. Really? You can monitor my bandwidth, and charge me when I go over, but you can't turn off text messages? That's pretty messed up as they obviously have the capability and technology to do that, they just choose not to in the hopes that people will go over and pay more.

I wonder if you smart@ss will still be defending the corporation when your mute deaf relative accidentally forgot to switch off the roaming and you have to pay for it, let say for $1000, let alone $200,000.

Tender Foot said,

Being not very smart isn't an excuse and shouldn't be used as one. Cops don't care if you didn't know the speed limit when the speed limit is posted in huge letters. Besides they are bound by a contract that they signed regardless of how some of you try to justified your case. Plus as always internationl rates are always higher and that's what jacked the bill up.

Sure..... because the TOS is written in big letters, plain and concise English and vessatory terms and conditions are highlighted and bold and repeated at the bottom of the contract and you have to specifically agree and sign for them.
Sure........

morrizz said,
I wonder if you smart@ss will still be defending the corporation when your mute deaf relative accidentally forgot to switch off the roaming and you have to pay for it, let say for $1000, let alone $200,000.

Of course they wont.

Fritzly said,

Sure..... because the TOS is written in big letters, plain and concise English and vessatory terms and conditions are highlighted and bold and repeated at the bottom of the contract and you have to specifically agree and sign for them.
Sure........

Any perosn how doesn't take the time to read the terms of any contract before agreeing to them and then something like this happens. It's the users fault regardless of how big the letters are.

User Error and Not T-Mobile's fault for user not turning off his data roaming feature on his cell phone plus not seeing the warning text T-Mobile sent. So you can't fault T-Moblie here at all and the Aarons should be thankfull T-Moblie gave them a huge discount on the bill.

Tender Foot said,
User Error and Not T-Mobile's fault for user not turning off his data roaming feature on his cell phone plus not seeing the warning text T-Mobile sent. So you can't fault T-Moblie here at all and the Aarons should be thankfull T-Moblie gave them a huge discount on the bill.

+1

Tender Foot said,
User Error and Not T-Mobile's fault for user not turning off his data roaming feature on his cell phone plus not seeing the warning text T-Mobile sent. So you can't fault T-Moblie here at all and the Aarons should be thankfull T-Moblie gave them a huge discount on the bill.

The bill was for $201,000. T-Mobile should text, call and then personally knock on your door to tell you when your bill reaches 1% of that, never mind actually that high a figure. User error my ass, that's crazy talk.

Tender Foot said,
User Error and Not T-Mobile's fault for user not turning off his data roaming feature on his cell phone plus not seeing the warning text T-Mobile sent. So you can't fault T-Moblie here at all and the Aarons should be thankfull T-Moblie gave them a huge discount on the bill.

personally i don't think he should be thankful AT ALL simply because $200,000 goes against common sense (even the $2500 is still not reasonable for a average person). it's a damn cell phone for christ sake. even $300-500 or so would be bad enough as $2500 is a lot of money for the average joe that's not making alot of $.

personally i would dump them and switch cell phone carriers as i am sure cell phone companies already make insane profits as it is at their regular rates seeing $70-100 PER MONTH for a damn cell phone... $50 or so would be plenty for a general cell phone for calls and unlimited text.

Hardcore Til I Die said,

The bill was for $201,000. T-Mobile should text, call and then personally knock on your door to tell you when your bill reaches 1% of that, never mind actually that high a figure. User error my ass, that's crazy talk.

try it yourself and see who's fault and how much you have to pay.

hOsTaGeZ said,

try it yourself and see who's fault and how much you have to pay.

Legally I'm sure T-Mobile are correct, morally...not at all. Yes they dropped the bill but it was still stupidly high.

Hardcore Til I Die said,

Legally I'm sure T-Mobile are correct, morally...not at all. Yes they dropped the bill but it was still stupidly high.

Here in the US we should implement the same system that is mandatory in some European Countries: When you get close to your plan limit you get warning by SMS and email; if you get over your plan and the bill is higher than Euro 50 they disconnect the service until either you confirm to the carrier that is OK or until the next month.

Fritzly said,

Here in the US we should implement the same system that is mandatory in some European Countries: When you get close to your plan limit you get warning by SMS and email; .

Finally someone with common sense.

+100

Gaffney said,
They love to feast off people going over the limits, it's a fact and no one is standing up for these people.

I know, it is horrible, isn't it. I mean I went to dinner last night, ate 5 Fillet Mignons with black truffle sauce, my date and I had a few bottles of Dom. And not one time did anybody warn me that my bill would be too high, or force the resturant to cut me off. Then the waiter in the resturant had the gall to bring me the bill. The resurant should have take the responsibility upon themselves, it is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of others, like the government, to make sure that the resturant does not allow me to do it.

/s

TMob was nice enough to drastically cut the bill when the person used the services, even after he was warned that he may have a high bill. He should feel lucky and learn from his mistake, and maybe learn a little personal responsibility.

nohone said,

I know, it is horrible, isn't it. I mean I went to dinner last night, ate 5 Fillet Mignons with black truffle sauce, my date and I had a few bottles of Dom. And not one time did anybody warn me that my bill would be too high, or force the resturant to cut me off. Then the waiter in the resturant had the gall to bring me the bill. The resurant should have take the responsibility upon themselves, it is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of others, like the government, to make sure that the resturant does not allow me to do it.

/s

TMob was nice enough to drastically cut the bill when the person used the services, even after he was warned that he may have a high bill. He should feel lucky and learn from his mistake, and maybe learn a little personal responsibility.

i see your point but seriously your going to defend a CELL PHONE company when they charge a arm and a leg at their normal rates already?

because it's JUST A CELL PHONE (i.e. should be fair rates for unlimited service. that whole charging per text is just greed on their end that should be standard on ALL cell phones. because it's pretty obvious that they are just screwing the end user if they can give you unlimited text for $5-10 over the regular cell phone rate and yet they charge someone a few grand. who's the bad guy here?)... so i don't think it's totally the same as the example you gave at eating at some fancy restaurant as people would CLEARLY know that they are going to pay a lot going there.

but that's their conditions. don't you agree to these conditions, so if you pass the limit and go into roaming and the phone company drastically cuts down the fee despite the conditions that the customer agreed to, the phone company looks pretty darn considerate. plus if they charge a arm a leg for their normal rates, i know that many countries have cheaper alternatives like in Canda they have mobilicity and wind, which are much cheaper than Bell and Rogers, if you don't want to subscribe to the major two phone companies.

ThaCrip said,

i see your point but seriously your going to defend a CELL PHONE company when they charge a arm and a leg at their normal rates already?

because it's JUST A CELL PHONE (i.e. should be fair rates for unlimited service. that whole charging per text is just greed on their end that should be standard on ALL cell phones. because it's pretty obvious that they are just screwing the end user if they can give you unlimited text for $5-10 over the regular cell phone rate and yet they charge someone a few grand. who's the bad guy here?)... so i don't think it's totally the same as the example you gave at eating at some fancy restaurant as people would CLEARLY know that they are going to pay a lot going there.

nohone said,

I know, it is horrible, isn't it. I mean I went to dinner last night, ate 5 Fillet Mignons with black truffle sauce, my date and I had a few bottles of Dom. And not one time did anybody warn me that my bill would be too high, or force the resturant to cut me off. Then the waiter in the resturant had the gall to bring me the bill. The resurant should have take the responsibility upon themselves, it is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of others, like the government, to make sure that the resturant does not allow me to do it.

/s

TMob was nice enough to drastically cut the bill when the person used the services, even after he was warned that he may have a high bill. He should feel lucky and learn from his mistake, and maybe learn a little personal responsibility.


This is a terrible analogy. A restaurant incurs real expenses with food, but a telcom incurs virtually zero expense with text messages. Those 160 characters ride on what are essentially the sync transmissions between your phone and the tower. In other words, your phone automatically sends probably hundreds of "texts" per day, and you're only charged for the ones that actually have text characters in them. As far as I know, this is how texts work on any cell standard (CDMA, GSM, etc).
The article doesn't say how much data was used - and that's where billing is at least a little more fair, as wireless bandwidth is a finite resource - but comparing this to eating a bunch of premium food in a fancy restaurant is just asinine. This is a case of telcom douchebaggery, through and through.

nohone said,

I know, it is horrible, isn't it. I mean I went to dinner last night, ate 5 Fillet Mignons with black truffle sauce, my date and I had a few bottles of Dom. And not one time did anybody warn me that my bill would be too high, or force the resturant to cut me off. Then the waiter in the resturant had the gall to bring me the bill. The resurant should have take the responsibility upon themselves, it is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of others, like the government, to make sure that the resturant does not allow me to do it.

/s

No...A better analogy would be, that if i went to my regular restaurant, and they moved me to another table. They then served me the same cheap cut of meat as always, and when the bill comes, I have been charged fillet mignon prices.

Kaidiir said,


This is a terrible analogy. A restaurant incurs real expenses with food, but a telcom incurs virtually zero expense with text messages. Those 160 characters ride on what are essentially the sync transmissions between your phone and the tower. In other words, your phone automatically sends probably hundreds of "texts" per day, and you're only charged for the ones that actually have text characters in them. As far as I know, this is how texts work on any cell standard (CDMA, GSM, etc).
The article doesn't say how much data was used - and that's where billing is at least a little more fair, as wireless bandwidth is a finite resource - but comparing this to eating a bunch of premium food in a fancy restaurant is just asinine. This is a case of telcom douchebaggery, through and through.

Wrong, those sync messages go only to the closest towers, they never go across the network and they sure as hell never leave.

Once you start texting, there is now a service that MUST be delivered and this is where it changes. If those sync packages don't get sent for 10 minutes, who cares. If you can't send or receive text messages for 10 minutes, that is a service disruption.

ShareShiz said,
I wouldn't pay. I'd switch to another company

switch or not they would have you arrested for not paying the bill and garnish wages..IMO they used that much they should pay the fee even if text messages are nothing to send...

sava700 said,

switch or not they would have you arrested for not paying the bill and garnish wages..IMO they used that much they should pay the fee even if text messages are nothing to send...

you can't be arrested for not paying a cell phone bill.

greatestfall said,

you can't be arrested for not paying a cell phone bill.

yes you can. if it is up to the company, they can have you arrested for theft of service.

ozgeek said,

yes you can. if it is up to the company, they can have you arrested for theft of service.

No, they cannot, at least not in the US. It is not theft of service; it is failing to pay a debt. Realistically all that would happen is a bad entry on her credit report. They could sue her in civil court, but that is highly unlikely as it would probably cost them more than $2,000 in legal fees and would be really bad PR.

These cell providers need to get their text charges under control a text message costs them close to NOTHING. I understand it is a profit center for them, fine, charge everyone $20 a month for unlimited plans, but don't try to hit us with these crazy overages and fees when it didn't actually cost anything.

ozgeek said,

yes you can. if it is up to the company, they can have you arrested for theft of service.

You can't get arrested for owing anyone except the US Government money in the USA. There are no "debtors prison" here. However, skip out on your taxes for awhile and the feds will come lock you up.

ozgeek said,

yes you can. if it is up to the company, they can have you arrested for theft of service.

Cant arrest you for it in the U.K either , so I suggest you get some facts to back up this ridiculous statement or simply shut up.

ShareShiz said,
I wouldn't pay. I'd switch to another company

Exactly. until those greedy cell phone company's use common sense and keep your cell phone bills at 'normal' rates (i.e. $100 MAX per month) i would refuse to pay anything over $100 or so simply because they are already making a killing as it is.

but in all honesty there is really no reason they should be charging more than $50 or so for pretty much unlimited everything.

cell phones cost WAYYY to much in general which is why i don't have them.

ozgeek said,

yes you can. if it is up to the company, they can have you arrested for theft of service.

That's not true at all. If we arrested people for unpaid bills probably 20% of the US population would be in jail!
The bill would be sent to a debt collector agency, who will then charge interest every month that goes by without payment.

They sent a text message to warn about this? A multi-million dollar company can't pick up the phone and try to call anyone about this? Then again, why would they?

BeatBlaster said,
They sent a text message to warn about this? A multi-million dollar company can't pick up the phone and try to call anyone about this? Then again, why would they?

how would they call him if he's mute-deaf?

Stekkz_ said,

how would they call him if he's mute-deaf?

That is true, but I hardly doubt the phone company knew this. A better question would be, why they text the number about to go over and not notify the personal ultimately responsible for the bill, that is the primary number on the account, as well.

BeatBlaster said,
They sent a text message to warn about this? A multi-million dollar company can't pick up the phone and try to call anyone about this? Then again, why would they?

Multi-million dollar doesn't mean you just have a **** ton of people sitting around waiting to call people when they go over their limits.

Logistically speaking, that would be a huge headache for every little, if any, gain.

DukeEsquire said,

Multi-million dollar doesn't mean you just have a **** ton of people sitting around waiting to call people when they go over their limits.

Logistically speaking, that would be a huge headache for every little, if any, gain.

Because computer systems can't monitor that and make automated calls? I've gotten them before from several companies. This day and age, it's pretty feasible.

BeatBlaster said,
They sent a text message to warn about this? A multi-million dollar company can't pick up the phone and try to call anyone about this? Then again, why would they?

Wait what? He sent 2000 text messages...simple logic, text is probably the BEST way to get in touch with the customer.

How many voice minutes were used?
0

How many texts?
2000

How should you contact this person? Seems simple to me.

Riva said,
I paid Orange UK £2,400 for 600MB of data roaming within europe

Sorry but you're the first person I've come across who I've actually be able to ask this:

Are you an idiot? Did you fail to read the terms of your contract? Seriously how can anyone be so clueless as to think that data roaming is a good idea...

Riva said,
I paid Orange UK £2,400 for 600MB of data roaming within europe
Out of your own pocket or did you expense it?