daS

No, you're not "a bit thick", I should have read the article before commenting. Sorry.

You are right that this case is not about AT&T missing the difference between 0.015 cents and 0.015 dollars. That was the situation for the Verizon issue a few years ago, but this one is just that AT&T charges crazy rates - but those are the published rates.

Well I do disagree here. While I agree that he has no legal grounds to not pay the bill (unless as he indicates, there's a question as to how much data he actually used, but that's a weak argument at best.) I do think that it's legitimate to expose the exorbitant roaming rates that wireless carriers charge.

I was in the telecom business for about 5 years (and still consult to a number of telecom companies that specialize in VoIP backhauls for long distance and international.) I can tell you that international roaming is a huge profit for wireless carriers - far exceeding anything else. And while the EU has been talking about regulating mobile roaming rates, I would much rather see the carriers be "forced" to set reasonable rates not due to government regulation, but because of public exposure of their price strategy. If enough people complain, then something will be done.

As someone who is now responsible for Sale and Marketing for a (abet smaller company than AT&T), I would much rather have customers complain about something than simply quietly pay their invoice and then take their business to a competitor. If I hear that our customer's are unhappy with our price(s) I have an opportunity to either explain why our price is what it is, or look into ways that we could reduce the price if possible. But customers who are unhappy and never complain can't be turned around into satisfied customers.

__________________
David Shier
VP - Sales & Marketing
CK Technologies, Inc.

frazell

Yea I agree that roaming charges can be insane. It was one of the reasons I signed up for Sprint. Their rates are 1/5th or 1/10th what T-Mobile's roaming rates were and they have a $40 flat rate add-on that I saw. So if people shop around for their needs the market can be forced to work its magic.

I also agree that using the media to expose the insane rates is a good thing. I just don't like the way the source article and the one on here painted it. They made it less about the fee being too high and more about him having to fight tooth and claw to get out of a fee he legally agreed to. He should instead have paid the bill and been leading a campaign to expose the rates.