Posted on 01/29/2010 12:36:59 PM PST by Drew68
CHULA VISTA — Letty Soriano and her 16-year-old daughter, Janel, made a pact for their trip to Dubai to limit their international roaming charges on the girl’s cell phone: Janel could text-message her friends but not call them. If she got lost, Janel could call or text her mom.
Surfing the Internet on her smart phone was left to Janel’s discretion. As Soriano understood it from a phone call with her carrier, there would be no additional cost for that, other than the standard charges included in the family’s data plan.
But two days after returning from visiting her sister in Dubai, Soriano’s service was suspended and she received a message to call T-Mobile. She learned that her daughter had racked up $16,379 in data-roaming charges accrued by surfing the Internet.
“I couldn’t sleep for two weeks,” Soriano said. “I was walking around like a dead person.”
Christopher Elliott, travel ombudsman for National Geographic Traveler, said he has fielded several similar complaints.
“When you travel overseas with your cell phone, all bets are off,” Elliott said. “The only way to ensure that you won’t have to pay roaming charges is to leave your cell phone at home.”
Others advise turning off international data-roaming features to prevent phones from automatically downloading data, such as e-mail, even if the phone isn’t being used.
The Federal Communications Commission receives many complaints about mobile-phone-company billing and rate charges, but the agency said it can’t provide figures without a public-records request, which could take weeks or months.
Soriano and her attorney, Cyrus Seradj, tried for eight months to negotiate with T-Mobile in an attempt to have the charges waived. They cited Soriano’s call to T-Mobile before she left on her trip to confirm the cost of overseas service.
After Soriano complained to T-Mobile, the company offered a 25 percent discount on the data charges. But that’s as far as it would go, saying Soriano never asked about overseas rates for using the Internet.
“It is T-Mobile’s position that the disputed data charges are valid and owed,” wrote Justin Chrisman, who works in the company’s customer-relations department.
But after receiving a phone call from The San Diego Union-Tribune inquiring about Soriano’s case last week, T-Mobile said in an e-mail message that it would waive the charges “as a sign of good will toward our customer,” said Krista Berlincourt, with Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, a public-relations firm that works for T-Mobile.
How does one rack up a $16,000 phone bill?
While in Dubai, Janel surfed the Internet the way she does at home, looking at YouTube videos and logging into MySpace. But using a cell phone while abroad incurs higher roaming charges than at home. T-Mobile charges $15 per megabyte to use data services overseas.
Soriano said she was stunned to hear of the exorbitant cost associated with Janel’s Internet use and is furious with T-Mobile for not being more explicit about how international data-roaming charges are incurred.
T-Mobile doesn’t discuss individual accounts. International roaming fees are listed on its Web page.
Soriano said she didn’t look at the Web page but called directly to inquire. She said the phone company should have warned her about the ballooning charges while she was in Dubai.
Mobile-phone carriers’ failure to alert their customers that they’re racking up massive bills as a courtesy the way credit-card companies do makes them unfriendly, said Mindy Spatt, with The Utility Reform Network, based in San Francisco.
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, a local consumer group, said phone carriers typically back off once another organization gets involved.
“The international roaming cases are jaw-dropping,” Shames said. “They are notable because of the sheer audacity of the bill.”
His organization has gotten involved in such cases multiple times, he said.
“When you get these kinds of bills, take a big, deep breath,” Shames said. “Rule 1 is keep breathing. Rule 2 is keep a sense of humor because you will work through it. It’s rare that a customer ever has to pay more than a fraction of it.”
When the company misleads, it should be held responsible. General contract law is that ambiguity in the terms of a contract is held against the person who created the contract. In this case, the company.
“I won’t name the provider but the first letter is the 22nd letter of the alphabet.”
Veech’s internet and mobile phone, over by hwy. 66? :-)
Can you lay off the mutual titillation long enough to notice that even conservatives generally frown on fraud.
She checked in good faith — disprove that.
She said the phone company should have warned her about the ballooning charges while she was in Dubai.
Really??? I mean really????? Since when is it the companies responsibility to give that information? So a credit card company must now warn customers not to use the card if they don’t have money in the bank?
This lady isn't convincing enough about what she knew and didn't know. You don't know anything about the ambiguity of terms she signed nor what she said she was told, just like me. I'm suspicious because of the mother-daughter 'agreement'. Her explanation doesn't ring true. Your impulse is to go after the cell company outright because of your housemate's Sprint problem.
She called and asked about it ahead of time.
At the cost of donuts locally, you again are trying to defraud.
The cost of pressing such an action would far outweigh what would be gained.
You are really laughable. If you are so obviously aggrieved, sue them then.
My housemate has many cell friends who tell him the same sorts of things.
By the way that was abusive when you used the sexual innuendo above.
Ever heard of small claims court? It’s worth a filing, particularly for a $16K bill.
“A fool makes a mock at [restitution for] sin.”
Exactly what innuendo? Please explain.
Illinois caps it at $5K
“hard on”
Okay, again, have it your way. You really aren’t worth arguing with. Bye.
You once more get caught playing with the naughty toys.
True...I love how this site works...you read the story...post your comments and then read FRiends comments and get even more story and a realistic view of things...lol. I love it though!!!
Yes, Gaffer is more garrulous therefore is more credible. Wonderful!
T-mobile, while I like their service, is exCEPtionally stubborn when it comes to giving back money. When I was working on a cruise ship, I must have accidentally signed up for unlimited texting with my rear end leaning against a bulkhead. (Yes, keypad lock is your friend) I saw the 2 x $20 charges 2 months later after never having sent or received a single text message in those 2 months. I could not convince them to drop the charges for hell or high water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.