Here is my FCC complaint:

I canceled my account with T-Mobile on 9-05-09 because they changed the terms of my contract and I did not agree to new terms. They instituted 2 new changes that I found to be material adverse. They told me they were going to charge me $1.50 to mail me a summary bill and they also increased the rate they were going to charge on minutes exceeding my plan rate. I was 21 months into a 24 month contract. I told and also wrote them that I did not agree to their "change of contract". They claim these changes do not matter and charged me $200 termination fee.

T-Mobile has since retracted their policy the $1.50 a month paper bill. However, I canceled before this change and was told the $200 early termination would not be waived.

I would like the FCC to heavily fine T-Mobile; I'm sure their actions violate some FCC law. I also want them to waive the $200 early termination fee.

It's good that The Consumerist did note the rather ominous use of "...for now" in the T-Mobile statement - it indicates to me that T-Mobile's not so much apologizing for the fee as they are apologizing for getting caught sticking it to us.

The statement itself is far more of a "We'll be back." rather than a "We're sorry for being evil - we'll stop that."

What this situation really needs is a good industry-wide class-action lawsuit against the practice of getting around set-in-contract pricing and no-penalty-exit clauses by simply tacking on non-negotiable "services" and "fees" whenever the company feels like it.

As it stands, T-Mobile can just tack on a new "fee" whenever it wants more money and by the language in their Terms & Conditions there's nothing that their customers can do about it and that just ain't right.

Add to that, that their system wouldn't let me or the CSR switch me back to paperless billing.

"5. Our Rights to Make Changes. Your Service is subject to our business policies, practices, and procedures, which means we can change without notice. UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN CHANGE PRICES, CHARGES AND ANY TERMS IN THE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME. IF WE MATERIALLY MODIFY THESE T&Cs IN A WAY THAT IS MATERIALLY ADVERSE TO YOU, OR IF A CHANGE INCREASES YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGE(S)."

That's it, it just trails off in that paragraph. The next paragraph simply says that they won't waive the ETF. This letter was from Rachel Smith in Customer Relations sent to me in a letter dated 8/21/09.

Maybe I'll scan the letter tomorrow and stick it on my blog. *shrug* Frankly what I think of T-Mobile and their customer relations would get me disemvoweled.

I order products online but only from trusted places that have buyer protection and use services in which standard workers in the company cant access any personal or financial info (but more trusted execs may have access (and in those cases those people have nothing to gain from robbing someone millions of times poorer than they are)

in a phone company there not as secure, even the lowest service worker has access to personal financial info, enough to do much more than just identity theft.

also every few weeks you will generally spot a few 0 day exploits for even the highest end servers used by these companies and if a random criminal in another country hacks the servers, it is nearly impossible to track them down and the customers will be screwed with the years of work it will take to get the situation fixed.

all in all, both online and through the slow usps are both unsafe but the security for online transactions are less secure.

@Razor512: You don't trust online banking? I take it you pay your bill using a check. You're telling me you'd rather send a check (something covered with personal information) through the USPS?

But now that a company wants to charge people a fee to do what is apparently stupid to begin with, we're up in arms. Suddenly electronic bills and payments are more difficult than folding a fitted sheet, and anyone who forces their use (or charges a fee to not use them) is Satan.

Once at the TMobile web site, there's no option to confirm this. They should be sued for wasting my time. I can't wait to call them asking for credit. More wasted time.

I must say though, that TMobile does have the best customer service out of all of them. Just wish they had better coverage.

My iPhone works great on their network.

Apparently it's too difficult to earn revenue honestly, so these dicks have to gouge their customers. No wonder everyone hates cell phone companies. Not a good one in the bunch.

Plain thievery is what it is.

CB

You actually mailed paper dollars with your bill? @StanTheManDean:

No, but they appeal to you as is they were sitting in a meeting:

Boss: "What can we do to have less impact on the environment?"

Flunkie: "I know -- paperless billing!"

Accounting flunkie: "Excellent idea. As an unimportant and totally incidental side benefit, it will also save us money!"

Part of the blather from the CSR did agree that I should have seen the first charge next month (October), but some bills went out with it now. This may be the source for Class Action Suit.

This charge is not saying that you HAVE to pay online. it is just to receive a paper bill. Those of you who still live in the 19th century and the thought of computers, technology, and change scare you, you can still pay by sending a check through the mail. And if you absolutely need a paper bill you can print one off the web for NO CHARGE from a t mobile store, or any other computer on the planet that has access to the internet and a printer. Or even check your balance on your phone. (#225# people)

Yes i don't think that the 1.50 charge is a good way to go about being green but its a step thats necessary to lighten the load of wasted paper. T-Mobile has around 35 million customers and if everyone were to recieve a paper bill that on average is 5 pages long, that would be 1,750,000 pounds of paper sent out every month, and most of that just gets throw away.

So yes, shame on tmobile to try and compensate themselves for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on thrown away paper.

Bring on the angry comments...

Oh how annoying, I switched to paperless billing to avoid the fee (even though I didnt really want to). Now I have to undo it, and as I read above go through the waiting period to reverse it....what a pain.

When I posted: "Take for example someone who has been injured in an accident. They can sue to recover expected future expected medical costs." I should have posted:

Take for example someone who has been injured in an accident. They can sue to recover expected future medical costs.

If ya don't send me a paper bill, don't expect me to send you paper $ to pay the bill I did not receive.

When I called them on this I got this answer:
"...bills are for next month's base service plus past month's extras charges and that it will take 2 billing cycles to stop paperless billing charge once I sign up and then a couple of months to be credited back, yada, yada, yada...

I went with T-Mobile several years ago because of coverage and customer service issues with AT&T/Cingular/AT&T. I can find no one in our area who is satisfied with any cell phone company (surprised-not!). Right now if it wasn't for the really great featured low rate family plan that is "grandfathered" that would cost $60+ a month more to currently duplicate with T-Mobile or any other carrier (forget GSM and CDMA and data issues), I would switch.

the problem is it is not just unauthorized purchases that is a risk, it is also identity theft in which if they put you in debt, you will loose a lot of money and be in serious debt until you can prove that it was due to identity theft, and even then you may not be able to reverse all of the charges (most people who suffer from identity theft loose money and get bad credit even after they spend years trying to get their identity back) and the process can take years, many people even loose their jobs in the process.

Charging me for a bill put me over the edge - I just joined with AT&T last night. With my new family bundle plan, I'm paying almost the same, with new equipment and a slightly better cell signal. Oh well.

"It's a great alternative to paper and better for the environment."

Ya know, Comcast tries that line too. I think they call their paperless bill ECOBILL.

NO, that is a lie, the reason these companies want to go paperless is that it costs them $$$ to print and mail thousands of bills a month and they want to get rid of these expenses to raise their profits.

I just feel insulted when companies try and tell me they are going paperless because they love nature so much and want to save the planet.. PLEASE!

Believe it or not, there are still people in this world who don't live/breathe/bill online, and it's unjust to punish them by charging them extra. Some aren't online because of access or lack of interest, and some don't do banking/shopping online because of fear of identity theft (a legitimate fear). I'm glad T-Mobile has--for now--reconsidered.

@Walrii:

I always thought a discount was the way to go, because quite frankly going paperless costs me money for a couple reasons. 1) If I ever want a tangible piece of paper to reference later I have to print it out myself using my own paper and ink, which costs me money. 2) I have to keep an electronic copy of it on my hard drive, which costs me money to store it an reference it later with my computer. The whole "go paperless" scam was never about being environmentally sound, it was meant as a way to shift costs to customers.

Take for example someone who has been injured in an accident. They can sue to recover expected future expected medical costs.

Another example is supposing someone is planning to build a structure in an area where the residents of that area don't want it. They can sue the builder to try to get construction of said building stopped before it has started. That would be easier than suing after the structure has been completed.

In the case of T-Mobile if the people waited to sue until the plan was active they might have a difficult time in getting their money refunded. Since the suit could take a long time it could run into a lot of money for some people.

I bet someone a klondike bar that some brave soul (class action or not) took this to court already and got an injunction...maybe not but it's always nice when a warrior goes to bat for his tribe.

/b/lackup received.../b/lackup implemented.../b/lackup success!

I think it's ridiculous to sue over something that might in the future occur (as we can see, it didn't occur), particularly when the plaintiff can easily prevent the occurrence of said incident. Knowingly incurring a fee for a service you receive and suing over it is silly enough. Suing over a fee that you have yet to incur, but will knowingly do so in the future, for a service you will receive but can opt of is beyond ridiculous. It'd be like me starting a lawsuit over ATM fees that I had knowingly agreed to, or in this case, fees that I would get in the future, knowingly and willingly rather than using the alternative (a teller, cashback on debit purchases, etc)

I understand the security concerns, though.

@Walrii: USAA givies a $50 discount when signing up and choosing statements to be emailed.

I don't like online bill payments because there not as secure. SSL is not very secure if a attacker gets a hold of the session authentication data and many web servers are vulnerable to exploits, and for large companies websites, if a attacker gets root access, they can easily gain access to payment info.

The ETF is another matter, although at this point those folks should have the option to come back free of charge with that fee waived or paying the fee, since there is no longer a materially adverse change to the contract.

Thats like paying a criminal to rob you.