First, go read this post. I’ll wait. I need a fresh lemonade anyway.
Done? Cool.
First of all let me say that for someone who doesn’t work in the telecom industry that it’s very easy to think badly of T-Mobile after reading that story. Hell, if I didn’t know what was really behind what happened there, I’d be just as peeved. But the whole story isn’t there and I think it needs some clarification.
Okay, so the events that took place happened in January of 2008. Let me double check, yep, by the information that’s provided, that seems correct.
What most people don’t know is that back in December of 2007 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed stricter Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) regulations that all U.S. Telecoms have to abide by. Before those new regulations it was pretty easy for anyone to call in, give their name, confirm the name on the account, confirm some personal information, and they’d get full access to that other person’s account. Since the new CPNI standards went into effect, that’s no longer the case. The FCC decided that only the account owner (the person who’s name is on the acount), or the people that the account owner had designated as Authorized Users on the account, may have access to the account information…which would include access to buying a phone in that person’s name. Apparently in the past, unauthorized folks just called up, ordered a phone, charged it to someone else’s account, mom’s, dad’s, daughter’s, and off they went with a new phone and no one was the wiser until the bill showed up.
If any of those T-Mobile employees had allowed that girl’s dad to buy a phone for her on her dead husband’s account when the dad wasn’t an authorized user they would have been guilty of a federal crime.
I don’t know about the T-Mobile employees, but I wouldn’t be willing to go to jail for anyone, no matter how bad their situation.
I realize that it’s easy to hate cell phone companies, trust me, I work for one and I think it’s absolutely scandalous that they just don’t give away cell phones and forgive every bit of overage that customers accrue through ignorance or apathy. It’s like they’re in business to make a profit or something. (sarcasm…in case you missed it) In this case though, they did exactly what your government told them to do.
Timmer,
I couldn’t agree more. Everyone thinks there worth something extra and really don’t give a crap why regulations say no.
Comment by Joe — 20080220 @ 0836
I completely understand how Mr Miller would be angry not knowing the whole story. What I can’t understand is how or why it wasn’t explained to him that it wasn’t T-Mobile’s policy, but federal law that kept them from buying that phone on his dead son-in-law’s account.
Comment by Timmer — 20080220 @ 1225
Who exactly would be making the complaint with the Feds? The dead man or the wife who would actually end up receiving the phone?
Comment by Phelps — 20080220 @ 1233
So, it’s federal law?
Then why would they have relented in the last couple of days and sent me a phone?
It’s either Federal Law or not, no gray areas.
It’s an excuse for poor customer service, period. If they were following the letter of the law, then they should have never sent me a phone.
So, YOU are wrong, try again.
Comment by Doug — 20080220 @ 1315
At it’s root, the problem is that you really can’t have access both easy and secure. Not with phones, not with bank accounts, not with government secrets. You tend to try and match the level of security to both the threat level and the risk of failure. So access to your public library account IS easier than missile launch codes. But the Crooks/Terrorists/Spys/Hackers are nothing if not responsive to any holes in the system, so adjustments are continous. It’s just not possible to please everybody all the time.
Comment by Jim A — 20080220 @ 1454
Mr Miller,
I only know what my training has taught me. It’s simply illegal to allow someone who’s not the billing authority and not an authorized user access to an account. Buying a phone with a phone number attached to it, requires access to the account. The calls made on that phone with that phone number are the billing authority’s responsibility. It would have been not only illegal, but immoral to allow you t buy a phone in your son-in-law’s name. I would have asked you to simply provide a copy of the death certificate and proof that you or your daughter were willing to accept responsibility for the account and it would have been a simple change of responsibility and pow, you’d have had a phone with that phone number.
Believe it or not, crooks and worse actually keep an eye out for death notices and news stories and then pounce on getting whatever they can in the dead person’s name. A cell phone with a phone number that isn’t attached to the bad guy is like gold to them. Those rules are in place to protect the remaining family members.
I have no explanation for why they finally relented and sent you a phone. I can only assume that someone at T-Mobile did in fact go the extra mile and confirmed your family’s loss and daughter’s condition and was then legally able to send you a phone.
Comment by Timmer — 20080220 @ 1505
And the FCC regulation has no authorization for a person’s death? Now that he is dead T-Mobile could simply keep the account active and continue to bill his estate monthly because no one else has been authorized to change the account? I am not currently suffering from insomnia so I won’t go and try to read the legaleze that passes for English in government documents today, but I find it hard to believe that there is not some provision for a surviving relative to act on the deceased behalf.
In any event the reasons we have humans in the loop is to make human judgments. In case like this even if the CS rep does not that the authority to make an exception to the company policy it should have been passed up the line until someone did. If it truly was a case of a horrendously constructed law, then I would be on the phone to my congress critter until it was amended.
I’ve often thought we needed a third house in the legislature. It would be their job to rescind bad laws. Lord knows there are enough of them.
Comment by Jim C — 20080220 @ 1519
Actually Jim, what I would have done if it had been my call was simply request a copy of the death certificate and do a change of responsibility to either the wife or father-in-law. It’s not rocket science. It happens every day.
Comment by Timmer — 20080221 @ 0314
Timmer!
Serious question to an industry insider…
Why is it that cell coverage in the US is so spotty, when Europe and even Arabia are totally covered? What would it take to get the US system on a par with even the third world in this area?
Comment by B Dubya — 20080228 @ 1540