The similar price increases, coming at similar times, Kohl said, "is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace."

Kohl noted in the letter that the top four carriers combined have over 90 percent of the U.S. market, and wants the carriers to provide information on

• how their pricing structures differ from their competitors;
• the factors that led to their decision to raise prices;
• a comparison of text message pricing to other wireless service pricing;
• the utilization of text messaging over the past three years.

"Congress questions high cost of texting" [Cnet: The Iconoclast] (Thanks to Brett!)
(Photo: Getty)

Why can't people set up filters to turn off unwanted spam text messages, especially when they're sent by unknown parties to a phone number that's never been (knowingly) listed by the owner? Maybe it's because Verizon gets to charge you 20 cents per message, suggests this reader who can't figure out why her grandfather's mobile number suddenly became a spam magnet after switching to a new Verizon phone.

Dear Consumerist,

My family and I wanted to relay a recent experience we had with the phone company Verizon. Over the last couple of months my grandfather's phone started receiving e-mail and web-based spam text messages. His phone is part of our family's plan, and he never put his phone number on the internet (for this reason) nor does he know how to send or receive text messages. Mind you this was a brand new phone with the same number, which had not received any sort of messages like these before the new phone. Just for clarification, he did not release his number before the new phone either.

We discovered on our phone bill that we were being charged for these spam text message at $.20 a text (up from the $.10 price just a few months ago). My mother spent several hours on separate days inquiring on how to turn off just the computer generated text messages. Even as the primary on the account, she was unable to turn them off. The salesmen in a local Verizon store stated that you could only turn off ALL text messages, not just web-based ones, which she knew to be untrue. She contacted the customer service at 611 and spent the many hours with tech support trying to accomplish this task. 611 was only able to help my mother when she had the phone in question on hand after registering an online account (at vtext.com) with Verizon for that specific phone (we had to make a new account for each phone) and provided the last four digits of her social security number. We had to repeat this process for each phone, which meant that phones had to travel from over an hour away so that we could do this for my grandfather's and grandmother's phones.

Our concern here is that Verizon is making big money off spam and this feature is nearly impossible to disable, even on the master account. The customer service has only occasionally reversed these charges. Somebody needs to step in (perhaps the FCC) and force Verizon to make disabling this feature far easier—-like offering an uncomplicated, free option to opt out.

Long story short, Verizon should not be allowed to make money off spam.

Sincerely,

A frustrated Verizon customer
(Note: this is the name my mother provided when talking with customer support)

We agree, and we think it would be fairly easy (but less profitable, which is why it won't happen) to implement a policy that allows CSRs to automatically credit, no-questions-asked, any charges for text messages sent by companies, known spam IP addresses, or unlisted numbers. The number of jerks who would game the policy to get a few free text messages each month would be far outweighed by the goodwill earned from customers who will no longer feel Verizon's taking advantage of them with sms spam.

(Photo: *nomad*)

Because the issue doesn't implicate Verizon's subscriber contracts, the plaintiffs claim the carrier's arbitration clause isn't enforceable.

"Suit alleges Verizon Wireless text service amounts to illegal gambling" [RCR Wireless]
(Photo: Jeff Kubina)

"The Z Report on BPA In Children's Feeding Products, Third Edition" [Z Recommends]

Mr. Dotson,

Although I'm sure you get many e-mails on a daily basis from customers that are less than pleased with the service that your company provides I'd like to give you some idea of my recent dealings with t-mobile customer care.

I am a SmartAccess customer with a 1000 minutes family plan for two lines. On January 22nd I paid my balance in full of $220.00 online. This balance included several dollars in overages related to txt messages in excess of my plan. After paying my balance I attempted to change my text messaging bundle on the t-mobile website. It stated that "due to the status of my account" I couldn't make any changes. Not wanting to incur more charges in the future I contacted customer support by dialing 611 on my blackberry and asking customer care to make the changes to my account.

Two days ago I received a text from t-mobile stating that I was nearing my spending limit. A bit taken aback that I'd be anywhere near the limit I logged in and checked my balance. There were in excess of $75 in text messaging fees on my account. I e-mailed customer support online to get the issue cleared up.

Tonight at 11pm EST a telephone call that I was on got disconnected and my service suspended. Not having received any reply from t-mobile support by e-mail I attempted to call customer care to get the issue resolved.

Apparently (and this isn't the first time I've encountered this) the call center agent that I spoke with on the 22nd not only didn't make the changes to my account, didn't place any notes on my account but also failed to even pull my account up to look at it. I can only assume that he takes the responsibilities of his job about as seriously as a cat with a ball of yarn.

Due to your customer call agent's pure incompetence my account is suspended. Had your employee done his job I wouldn't have incurred the over $75 in text messaging charges that put my account over it's limit. I find that unacceptable.

I'll be the first to admit that I got a bit short with your call agents tonight. That might have something to do with their absolutely infuriating habit of cutting a customer off in midsentence and interrupting at every possible opportunity. You customer call agents are not only incompetent, they're immensely rude. I don't like being told that nothing can be done to remedy an error on the part of your company. According to your agents my only option is paying off these charges. The sheer idea of offering me "bonus text messages" as a remedy for my "inconvenience" is nothing more than an insult.

Although I may be a SmartAccess customer I'm also a governmental customer and a customer with a long standing clean record with your company. As such I expect, no I demand, that something be done about your company's complete lack of customer service. The whole point in having customer care and billing agents is to provide your customers with resolution to service problems. The fact that your call agents have no way to bring remedy to a situation is absolutely assinine, what is it exactly you pay them for?

Cordially,

Ric

(Photo: gumuz)

Was there a change to the terms of service? Something along the lines of, "We have decided to greatly reduce, and perhaps entirely disable, a part of the messaging package you pay for."

(Thanks to Sorin!)

"ATT, N95-3 and mms issues" [HowardForums]

Here's the excerpt from the contract, sent to use by Andrew:

15.Rogers may change these terms, and any aspects of the services, upon notice to you. *If you do not accept a change to these terms, your sole remedy is to retain the existing terms unchanged for the duration of your commitment period. If you do not accept any other change to aspects of the services, your sole remedy is to terminate.*

People have tried this reasoning to get out of cellular contracts here in Canada, but when pushed the carriers simply relent and allow you to continue your service while being bound under the "old" contract instead of the new one, in turn keeping you locked in.

RELATED
"Cancel Verizon Without Termination Fee Based On New Text Message Rate Increases"

My name is Marianne Maestas and I am with the Executive Customer Relations department of T-Mobile. I am contacting you on behalf of Mr. Robert Dotson in regards to the email that you sent him yesterday evening.

In your email, you express concerns, as you are not able to use your service for Twitter. As you have been advised, Twitter is not an authorized third-party service provider, and therefore you are not able to utilize service from this provide any longer. You indicate your feeling that this is a violation of the Net Neutrality.

T-Mobile would like to bring to your attention that the Terms and Conditions of service, to which you agreed at activation, indicate "... some Services are not available on third-party networks or while roaming. We may impose credit, usage, or other limits to Service, cancel or suspend Service, or block certain types of calls, messages, or sessions (such as international, 900, or 976 calls) at our discretion." Therefore, T-Mobile is not in violation of any agreement by not providing service to Twitter. T-Mobile regrets any inconvenience, however please note that if you remain under contract and choose to cancel service, you will be responsible for the $200 early termination fee that would be assessed to the account at cancellation.

The arguments are relevant to the issue at hand, because text messaging is not the Internet. Until your communication hits the TPC/IP layer, it's subject to all the corporate crap that phone messages are. The phone companies are more balkanized than you realize, clearly. Specifically, phone service providers are allowed to block any short code they want. Read the policies for using a short code to provide service.
http://www.usshortcodes.com/csc_obtainPol.html
T-Mobile already has the contractual right to pick and choose which short codes it supports.

"Net Neutrality outrage: reports of T-Mobile blocking Twitter" [ZDNet]
"Twitter, Tweeters, And T-Mobile: Everyone Loses" [Silicon Alley Insider]
"T-Mobile Attacks Net Neutrality Unnecessarily: Twitter Problem Not Its Fault" [Wired]

ISPs want to block BitTorrent, ban political text messages, and censor concert lyrics. The only political solution to bad faith is to strip of ISPs of their right to discriminate.

Net neutrality advocates want two things: hearings in the Congressional Commerce Committees; and for the FCC to join them at the woodshed to slap Comcast with a massive fine. Now is the time to write to your Members of Congress, write to the FCC Commissioners, and visit SaveTheInternet.com.

Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: SuziJane)

(Photo: Getty)

"...in regards to my personal work number being published on a website, consumerist.com, in regards to customers calling me personally in regards to their contact with Sprint..."

In the message, Judy advises customers to call Sprint's main line at 877-812-1223 and wait their turn for incompetent service just like anybody else.

We almost feel bad. Then we remember how evil retention department people are, how skilled in mental manipulation irregardless of the facts... and then it feels good. — BEN POPKEN

Suspected cell phone spammers sued [SJ-R]

That TOS wording is so weasely as to make us a bit ill. "Use our services?" Isn't even having your Sprint phone turned on a use of their services? This contract is a carte blanche to hike rates of consumers without giving them any recourse to cancel if they don't like it. After all, they've implicitly agreed to be boned just by having their telephone on. Bogus.

Overage on these plans will remain at $.10, so the rate increase would not affect you.

The thing to try then is to cancel the text message package on your plan!

Once you do that, the rate increase will affect you and you can cancel. Maybe. We haven't tried it ourselves, but it seems like a plausible strategy.

We found about the exception because Sprint herself added a comment to one of our posts. That comment, lifted from the fray and presented in marquee glory, after the jump.

Sprint writes:

"These changes do not affect customers who are on a text messaging plan. Our current text messaging plan offers remain at $5/300 msgs., $10/1000 msgs. and $15/unlimited msgs. Overage charges on these plans will also remain at $0.10.

Some media have inaccurately reported that this change means any Sprint customer can cancel his or her contract without having to pay an early termination fee. This may be true for some customers who are adversely affected, but does not apply to everyone. Please see talking points for more specifics. PR is following up with the media who originally aired the inaccurate information, which they did without contacting Sprint, to correct them.

RCR Wireless has updated their online story published yesterday to reflect the correct information. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27491"

Talking points? What are these talking points you speak of?

1-888-211-4727 Retention
1-407-475-6982 Judy Rathcliffe, Retention Department Supervisor

UPDATE: Judy's number no longer works.

Initially we were going to post different numbers we had found in a forum. Then, to be sure, we called them and sure enough, some of them had changed. And people say we don't fact-check, pssh.

Previously:
Defeat Sprint's Rate Hike Cancellation Lies
Oct31 Deadline For Free Sprint Contract Killing

The most common line Sprint customer service reps are using is that text messages are an "add-on," and therefore not covered in the original contract.

This is a blatant lie.

You can still cancel without paying a termination fee, but it will take persistence and tenacity. One successful canceller threatened to file a letter with his Public Utilities commission, and then did it. He received a letter confirming he got out of contract without charge a week later.

The reps may try to tell you the change only applies to people with special text message plans, or only to people who signed up after Oct. 1. These too are bald misrepresentations.

Be firm. Be in control.

Some customers report being offered service credits or free text messaging to stay. Be aware that if you accept these carrots, you will have accepted the new terms of service and not be able to cancel over the text message rate hikes.

Canceled Sprint successfully under these terms? Trying to and failed? Share your thoughts in the comments or tips at consumerist.com

Previously: Oct31 Deadline For Free Sprint Contract Killing

Sprint has raised its text-messaging fees to $.15, giving you a "get-out-contract-free" card.

The change constitutes a material change to service. According to Sprint's fine-print contracts, if there's a material change to service, you can cancel service within 30 days without penalty.

The changes went into effect Oct 1, so you have until All Hallow's Eve if you want to dropkick Sprint.

"Sprint Rate Hike Means Penalty-Free Cancellation" [CBS13] (Thanks to Carson!)

But for many mobile phone users, this could go beyond merely being a nuisance. Sure, there's the lost time factor, as each adver-text costs you precious time on this earth, as you reach for your phone, hoping for a sexy note from your lover, only to find a note from WalMart, announcing a rollback on Black and Decker toaster ovens.

Even worse, this is marketing that could cost you money. Unlike Europe, where the caller or texter tends to foot the bill, American texters AND textees pay. If marketers start peppering you with their messages, your texting plan could go into overage rather quickly.

Time for a Do-Not-Text List? Until then, be careful when giving away your cell phone number. You don't want to opt into any marketing scheme that will cost you money down the road.

Advertising through text messaging appears ready to explode nationwide [AP via Tucson Citizen]

If the former user didn't cancel their text-message based services, like sports scores and potential dating matches, updates, you can start getting charged for their info fix.

What can a consumer do?
• Fight with the cellular provider to get the charges waived.
• Contact the 3rd party services themselves and remove the service.
• In extreme instances, disable text messages entirely.

What can a cellphone company do?
• Notify 3rd party services when number owners turn over.
• Wait longer before recycling numbers.
• Open up more area codes.

(Thanks to Philip!)

The rate increase really annoyed Sam as all he could do about it was kvetch.

However, an email from an alleged T-Mobile customer service rep tells us differently. "Customers actually had 30 days after recieving their statements in january 2006 detaiing the increase in charges to cancel WITHOUT an early termination fee," says Matt G.

Thanks Matt! Now that's what we call customer retention!

"On T-mobs website you can choose to filter text messages by wildcard addresses or flat out BLOCK all incoming email messages sent to xxxxxxxxxx@tmobile.com simply by choosing to block all emails sent to this phone."

We're betting the other cellular providers have something like this as well.

Previously: Nu Txt Msg Scm

UPDATE: Edward writes, "The ability to do this varies. On my Nokia phone with Working Assets (A Sprint reseller) I needed call Working Assets and they had to disable text messaging on their end."

That seems dumb that they couldn't apply a more nuanced solution.

A messager identifying themselves as "501" sent this: "Jodie@gadgetries.tk/good 2 go/You just WON a S@tellite TV System AND a HDTV Reciever From the Dsh NetWork !!! Call 800 923 9037 Now Claim your Prize."

We called the 1-800 number a few times. It picked up, was totally silent and then hung up after 10 seconds.

Both the complainants say they have no idea how they received the message. One of them said she doesn't give her number out to many people.

Phone spam, the new scam scourge?

Likewise, in jolly old England texting is a big deal. Ewan MacLeod is pissed that mobile phone carrier Orange is raising text message prices.

Find out why and what he's going to do about, after the jump. Plus, there's some T.S. Eliot poetry. Oh yeah baby, we can put The Consumerist angle on anything.

He writes:

"The Mobile Data Association reports that here in Britain we send around 100 million text messages a day. While many people have text-bundles included on their service plans, the moment you go over your allotment, your text costs raise from an average of 3 pence per text to 10 pence per text. For no good reason. It's absolutely ridiculous. The gall!"

Ewan's company NeoOne provides a range of mobile data services, for example SMS text to screen services for nightclubs, so not only does he know what he's talking about, he has a financial incentive to see mobile messenging costs decrease.

To that end, he's started an online petition. You can show your support by going to maketextingcheaper.com and e-signing. That is, if your hyper Sidekick use hasn't bruised your fingers too badly.

We also advise burning a cellphone in effigy. Be sure to pack it with an old tapedeck upon which you've recorded, "We are the hollow men... Our dried voices, when / We whisper together/Are quiet and meaningless / As wind in dry grass/Or rats' feet over broken glass / In our dry cellar"

Here's a bit of marketing-speak for you.

I've got T-Mobile, about half-way through a one-year contract. (and regretting it). Rate increases really annoy me, since all I can do is complain about it. So, I'm complaining to you.

T-mobile is upping their rate from $0.05 to $0.10 per text message. 10 cents is pretty standard, but that wasn't the agreement when I joined.

Here's the page with the original price.

Here's the page with the new price.

Here's the kicker. On the page with the new price, there's a footnote that reads "Discounted domestic messaging rate (for US telephone numbers) of $0.05 each in effect through February 28, 2006."

It reminds me of 1984 when Winston notes that people had demonstrated to thank Big Brother because their chocolate ration had been increased to 20 grams. (when it had actually be reduced to 20 from 30) The disinformation is disturbing.