Perhaps as expected, wireless operators and some lobbying groups have voiced concerns that regulations would stifle competition. But I really can't see the hang-up here.
The debate surrounding mobile phone bill shock in the U.S. got even hotter recently thanks to a couple of proposals from the FCC and New Mexico Senator Tom Udall. Both propose ways for mobile operators to be more proactive about alerting subscribers when they are about to incur unexpected charges that are not covered by their monthly plans.
Both sets of proposals outline actions that are quite close to those the EU formally initiated back in June of this year, and which
Volubill provided a solution to Network Norway for. The
FCC's bill shock proposal would have mobile operators:
1) Notify customers via voice or text alerts when they are approaching and have reached monthly limits, and when further usage will result in overage charges.
2) Notify customers when they are about to incur international or other roaming charges that are not covered by their monthly plans, and if they will be charged at higher-than-normal rates.
3) Provide clear disclosure of any tools they offer to set usage limits or review usage balances. The FCC is also asking whether all carriers should be required to offer the option of capping usage based on limits set by the consumer.
Senator Udall's proposal goes a few steps further and specifies that providers should notify customers when they have used 80% of their monthly limit or prepaid amount of voice or data. Further, it would require carriers to make customers actively elect to exceed their limits, service is simply switched off until the next billing cycle.
Perhaps as expected, wireless operators and some lobbying groups for the industry have voiced their concerns that such regulations would stifle innovation and competition in the industry. But I really can't see the hang-up here for operators. I think the
LA Times' David Lazarus put it best in his opinion piece:
"since every single wireless company says it places customers first, I can't imagine why the industry would settle for anything less."
Lazarus also argues:
"if wireless companies could no longer count on ridiculous overcharges as a revenue stream, they'd have to compete all the harder on such things as quality of service and nifty features."
Again, right on the money. Operators can do all they want to improve the overall experience of their customers with unique and creative services, and make sure access is reliable and fast. But nothing will make up for a $1,000 surprise monthly bill that a subscriber will have to spend their time arguing against and probable have to pay in the end anyway. Especially considering that the systems and channels needed to make these notifications possible are already widely available in the form of policy management and real-time charging tools.
Not being transparent with subscribers about charging practices? That's a deal breaker.
