![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1304928-100x100.png\")
If they ever go through with it, I will be canceling my cellphone service and switching to another company. The thought of paying to receive a bill that you have to pay is a very dirty thing for this company to do.
Thats like paying a criminal to rob you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
@Razor512: I don't know how their electronic billing works, but you absolutely have the option to not pay and still get your bill.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@coren: T-Mobile's whole online account services is a joke and completely unstable and illogical (process wise).
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.
@coren: the problem is that these services will include the \"bill\" as part of the bill so you will be stuck paying it. it is just another way of them increasing the price.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-274178-100x100.png\")
@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?
@MessageinaBottle: when you pay by check, it requires someone to actually either break into the mailbox at the post office (since it is close, I drop the mail off there) and it is harder for a criminal to get access to a mail processing center than it is for them to get into a the cellphone companies web server.
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.
@wcnghj:
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.
@Razor512: My understanding is it wouldn't go into effect until tomorrow and that it was opt out, not true? Cuz if it is, there isn't stuck.
I understand the security concerns, though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-849514-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343205-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1300994-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-128819-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-82731-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1039316-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-212948-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-117360-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1296129-100x100.png\")
How about a discount for the customers using paperless billing? It's saving T-Mobile various costs, so why not pass those savings on? Oh wait, that'll NEVER happen, with any company, ever. :(
@Walrii: I get a discount on my car insurance for not using paper statements. And my bank pays me each month for not using paper statements, and paying bills online instead of using checks.
@Walrii: Nah they'd never risk losing money... so why not offer free SERVICES for paperless? Give them like, 1000 minutes for signing up or something.
@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.
@Walrii: The could even slowly bump up the across the board costs equal to $1.50 per month, and then give a $1.50 discount to go paperless. The costs will be the same to T-Mobile, but without the backlash. People love discounts and hate fees.
@Walrii: USAA givies a $50 discount when signing up and choosing statements to be emailed.
@Walrii: I was going to suggest that, but you beat me to it. Discounts are so much more attractive than fees, that's for sure.
@Walrii: I know for a fact some companies give you a discount for going paperless including Time Warner