Temperatures have been rising as of late in the U.S. mobile communications landscape. The FCC and CTIA have recently exchanged some words about the findings of
a recent FCC survey of American mobile service users. The survey results, released back in May, reported that one in six have experienced some sort of “bill shock,” the receipt of an unusually high cell phone bill without prior warning, often due to unexpected roaming charges. CTIA then questioned the validity of the survey in a
response on its blog, in which the author suggests that the survey findings were misleading and the term “bill shock” possibly misused. This in turn prompted a
response from the FCC on
their blog, saying that instead of trying to undermine the study, the CTIA should focus its efforts on helping to resolve bill shock.
Bill shock has long been a pressing issue in Europe, where the European Union, in an effort to prevent it, now requires European carriers to inform their users when they are about to enter roaming zones. In a related vein, the FCC survey made the point of noting that of the 30 million Americans surveyed, 84 percent reported that their mobile carriers didn’t inform them when they were about to go over their allotted minutes or text messages. This finding harkens back to a
statement made by the FCC in May declaring that it would explore whether U.S. mobile providers should be required to provide this type of information. The requirements were billed as part of the FCC’s “truth in billing” effort, which was launched last August and resembled those put in place by the European Union.
So where does all of this leave us? Bill shock remains a problem, and the move away from flat-rate charging to tiered 3G and 4G prices - as discussed in my
previous post – as well as the rapid uptake in data consumption with smart phones, is likely to only exacerbate the situation. Bill shock and overall network traffic management are pressing issues for operators – issues that must be addressed if operators hope to maintain a high level of experience for their customers. Policy and billing management solutions currently exist to help providers combat the problem of bill shock and avoid having to face disgruntled customers, but operators must take the initiative to implement them. Could it be that mobile service providers are reluctant to help their users avoid bill shock? Given the huge investments they’re making in their networks, constant revenue threats, and the ever-increasing competition they face, that notion doesn’t seem too far-fetched. That said, if the FCC follows through on their suggestions to impose overage warning requirements, operators may not have a choice. For now, inquiring minds have no option but to sit back and see how this all unfolds.
The whole issue of bill shock is part of a larger debate around transparency. Traditionally, operators have been notorious for providing minimal transparency into pricing policy and the associated restrictions that come with it. For example, the practice of burying “Fair Usage Policy” wording deep inside the Terms of Services in a font that my eyes could barely read is unnecessary and churlish. I have always felt that operators have missed an opportunity with this approach. Customers like transparency, even it if contains perceived bad news. The willingness to openly expose the “negative” builds trust in the customers’ minds because they feel they have the full picture. With fairly dramatic changes to pricing policy underway, transparency will become more of an issue in the months ahead. Perhaps the topic warrants a separate post.
