Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment [Telecom]

Historically, overseas telephone charges were extremely high. Likewise, cellphone roaming charges outside your home area used to be high (mine was $1.00/minute). Even after new cables allowed reductions rates were still high. Given that, I would think a traveler would check into rates cell and landline rates in advance, especially from a distant place like Indonesia.

Unfortunately, today it's hard to find out what rates are. It used to be to simply dial the operator at any time and she'd tell you. But now with the many phone plans and carriers it's hard to find out. Many people today have free calling within the continental (48 states) so rarely have a need to get rates. But there's usually a charge, possibly a steep one, to call or use a cellphone outside the 48 states.

Calling "customer service" can mean a long wait and inaccurate infomration from an overseas based automaton. (If anyone knows a good way to easily find out landline and cell phone special rates please share it with us.)

Too bad she happened to be in one of the handful of countries that has a mobile network compatible with Verizon's.

Also, to run up an $8,000 phone bill even at $1.75/minute or $2.50/SMS would require being on the phone for over 75 hours, or sending over

3000 text messages. If her trip was a week long that's 10 hours/day on the phone. I suppose it might have been data fees but you'd still have to download hours of video to spend that much.

Her husband commented: "What a waste of money." No s***, Sherlock.

R's, John

Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who finally do the billing.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that request.

If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.

Dave

Let's assume that it was a two-week vacation and that the $8000 was $5,000 for minutes and $3,000 for messages: that's almost 3,000 minutes (almost three and a half hours per day) and 1200 messages (almost 100 per day).

... because some of us don't stop to think that things might work differently in other parts of the world from how they do at home. I remember when it was practically inconceivable for any individual to make hours-long *landline* long distance calls because they understood that it cost money; are we so self-absorbed (or spoiled by the bundles available at home) that we expect our home plans to cover service worldwide?

And, if my estimates are anywhere near correct, the person in question was a fool from the beginning for spending money to fly halfway around the world just so she could spend half the day talking and texting on her cellphone!

You will have a very long wait because I only travel in this country.

Or, the old lawyer trick. Put your recollections in writing and send to the top dog, stating the purpose of the letter, a detailed statement of the information provided to you by rep "Jones at 10:55 AM, PDT, August 16, 2009. Conclude the letter by saying, "Please let me know by mail or telephone if you disagree with my statement of the facts as set forth in this letter."

***** Moderator's Note *****

I don't think you need to involve an attorney: keep in mind that top executives deal with lawyers on a daily basis, and are not likely to be impressed or intimidated by a lawyer.

However, a paper letter can bring good results: just state your case as clearly and simply as possible, and you'll almost always get a good result.

Bill Horne

I was just about to point this one out.

Maybe it's because I know more about telephones than the average consumer. But I still think it's common knowledge that cell phone fees outside of the country are astronomical. And as John pointed out, racking up an $8k bill is no easy feat. Don't people travel to exotic locales to get away from it all?

John

I am not a lawyer. Perhaps people with actual _experience_ in recording calls could respond to the following post (not merely reading what the law says on paper).

I would recommend recording a phone call with any organization with whom you are having a serious dispute for which resolution may be difficult.

Many journalists have told me they routinely record all telephone interviews without notice even though illegal in the state (they didn't even know it was illegal). It has never been an issue. If memory serves, a participant in 'Monicagate' illegally recorded calls and while it was discussed, there was no prosecution and the illegal tapes still were utilized.

I can't help suspect that recording a call without notice for your own record would not be a problem even if illegal in your state. _Perhaps_ attempting to use that recording in court might be a problem, but that assumes your case goes that far. I think if you tell the person you're recording the call then it is legal. Again, others with _experience_ in this might comment further.

My old answering machine had a conversation record option where a beep tone was done every 15 seconds. This was a published standard to announce a call was recorded. At one time 911 centers, which recorded the call, played the beep tone, as did certain other organizations.

I don't know if they still make such recording machines that play the beep tone. I only used it once, and it was certainly easier and higher quality than than the suction cup against the receiver plugged into a tape recorder. But I assume commercial-grade electronic dealers would carry telephone recorders because many places do record phone calls today.

I'd suggest that... the recording played by just about every telco (and far too many other businesses) at the beginning of any phone call that says "this call may be recorded for quality assurance or training purposes" grants you permission...

-- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key snipped-for-privacy@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

***** Moderator's Note *****

IANALB I think that announcement about how a call may be recorded gives _them_ permission to record, not you. AFAIK, _you_ have to announce that _you_ are recording in order to make it legal.

FWIW, I once had experience listening in on a lot of phone calls made by telemarketers: I was responsible for doing routine maintenance on leased T-Carrier lines which carried foreign-exchange trunks for a company pitching everything from home maintenance contracts to time-share condos in Gulfport, Mississippi. I won't divulge specifics, but they're not important anyway. What I remember was realizing that all the sales pitches were carefully worded so that they _implied_ a tremendous amount that they didn't actually promise.

Bill Horne

[snip of yet another horror story regarding a "cellular phone" arried out of the US leading to a mega bill ]

The societal problem here is that there's no warning to the average consumer that they're going to be zapped with astronimical charges of this size.

It's a pretty brand new experience for people to run into this with.. telephones. Pretty much since the start of the public telephone system your maximum exposure was limited. (Yes, there were occassional horrors involving the "900" numbers and releated stuff, but they were pretty rare, and while getting hit for hundreds of dollars was possible, it took some doing. Oh, and eventually the regulators, the Law, and public pressure cut this down to size).

In the Good Old Dayze the One Bell System, It Works, would even occasionally call a customer in the _middle_ of a billing period warning that there were lots more calls, and lots more expenses, than the norm.

So it's really about time the wireless telcos implemented some flagging on today's accounts.

(Even better would be to erduve their absurd and confiscatory rates).

I was speaking of the customer writing the letter using that style. ;-)

***** Moderator's Note *****

That's unlikely to impress or intimidate anyone. The "top dog" gets legal notices every day, and some top executives get so many of them that they designate a secretary with a limited power-of-attorney which allows the secretary to be served with legal notices.

Trying to sound like a lawyer is an old spammer trick, since spammers often send threatenting emails filled with legalese to those who report them. The spam fighters call such messages "Cartoonies", a morphed word which is a combination of "cartoon" and "attorney".

Long story short: just get to the point, and never threaten what you can't or won't deliver. You'll get farther by being an angry customer than by trying to sound like something else.

Bill Horne

It's very possible the actual bill wasn't that high and there's more to the story than we know.

I'm not at all sure that it's "common knowledge" among ordinary consumers that cellphone charges out of the country can be significantly higher than here. Rates and charges are so complex these days it's very hard for ordinary consumers to keep up with them. Remember, many carriers do not provide itemized call lists anymore.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Taking a cell phone to a foreign country without regard to the rates and charges which will apply is like travelling without vaccinations: if someone wants to be a candidate for the Darwin Award, that's their business, but they shouldn't come to the hospital crying about how they didn't know plague still exists.

In like manner, Americans venturing abroad with radio transceivers should not come crying to the press about a cellular bill, just because they didn't realize that a foreign government might not care how much they _assumed_ that foreign telecommunications networks, policies, or charges are "just like us".

Bill Horne

I can't speak to what you can get away with, but according to

Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Now, IANAL either, but if the recording started off with an announcement from the VM hell of the party you were calling that said "this call may be monitored for quality assurance", I'd take that as permission.

[Moderator snip]

Dave

Sadly, I've met people who did not realize that their cell phones were radio transceivers. Even though they had noticed that there was no wire.

Dave

***** Moderator's Note *****

A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

I think you are missing the point Bill. A letter of this type is neither threatening nor angry. It is a specific summation of the factrs provided by the customer service agent about the foreign destination charges that will be imposed. And, the letter concludes "Unless I hear from your company to the contrary I will assume this letter accurately reflects the statements made by your representative, Joan D, to me on October 15, 2009."

Indeed California ia a dual-consent state, but that only applies to intrastate calls. Interstate calls are governed by FCC rules, which are single-consent.

Ten years ago, I asked AT&T what the rate was Taiwan->US with my {then} AT&T credit card. I made a a call; and got charged 6-8 times that rate.

When I got that bill; I sent a money order for the quoted rate straight to the CEO's office with a letter. Some underling answered and admitted I was quoted a collect rate, not the CC; one. They accepted my payment; so I won.

The underlying problem is with phone calls, you really have no way of knowing what rate you'll get charged...even if you asked... until AFTER you've incurred the expense and gotten the bill.

There is little doubt that that is their 'intention'.

*HOWEVER* the actual language used does -not- specify whom it is that 'may' be doing the recording.

It is a clear announcement that -they- "may" record the call for the purposes indicated.

It is -not- as clear, but it *IS* an arguable interpretation of the actual language used, that it 'gives permission' for others to record the call, for the purposes indicated.

The exact language that is 'nearly universally' used for this function

*IS* 'bad verbiage'. Precisely _because_ it can be interpreted in multiple ways.