Humberto Saabedra is the Editor-in-Chief of AnimeNews.bizPhoneNews.com and an occasional columnist for Ani.me. He can also be found musing on things at @AnimeNewsdotbiz

5 responses to “T-Mobile to Charge Additional Fee for Paper Billing”

  1. Steven Goldfein

    The FCC or someone should make this practice illegal. You shouldn’t have to pay to recieve your invoice in the mail each month or be forced to recieve it electronically to avoid the fee. I am glad I do not have T-Mobil as a carrier.

  2. siele fekadu

    In order to collect your income it is unfair and illegal charging customers extra payment ,It is because those who are the member of t- mobile they can get the information about the monthly bill from there cell phone ,if there is a problem as usual they can ask the customer service or they can check on line. by the way i do not need paper billing . even the customer ask detail information ,you have the responsibility to give them full information with out payment.’Customer is king’

  3. Elaine Jackson

    THIS IS SO SAD FOR A COMPANY THAT YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING SERVICES FOR IS CHARGING AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO HAVE A COPY OF YOUR OWN BILL, AMONG OTHER HIDDEN CHARGES . I WISH SUNCOM WAS STILL AN INDEPENDENT OWNER. I NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT ANY HIDDEN CHARGES AND MY BILLING AMOUNT WAS ALWAYS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT. SADDENLY DISAPOINTED!!!!

  4. Nany Mouse

    Write Richard Dotson, T-Mobile CEO, at rdotson@t-mobile.com. Sample letter:

    Mr. Dotson:

    I have received notice that T-Mobile would be adding a $1.50 per month charge to my account for receiving a paper bill, and I wish to register my dissatisfaction with the company’s unilateral decision. Prior to September, T-Mobile provided paper bills to its customers; this normal cost of doing business was covered by the monthly fee for service. Therefore, the new, additional fee of $1.50 amounts to an increase of the monthly service fee, as it covers no new service provided by T-Mobile to its customers. Among these reasons that T-Mobile has put forth for the new fee are:

    > Increases in postal charges and printing costs. From one year to another, postal charges, especially in bulk business shipments, such as those for mobile phone bills, have not increased by more than a few pennies, at a maximum; the same is certainly true of printing costs — much likely less, in fact. Clearly, these are not a valid reasons for charging the new fee.

    > An interest in preserving the environment. This is certainly a noble cause. However, if T-Mobile were truly interested in promoting environmentally-friendly action, it could simply encourage paperless billing by sharing the associated cost savings with customers; imposing a confiscatory fee is disingenuous in this regard, with T-Mobile providing nothing of its own toward the stated noble end while reaping considerable profit from its customer base. Would you be lobbying for a new fee on US businesses to promote recycling if this fee did nothing to provide T-Mobile with a competitive advantage and there was no means of recouping this fee? Again, charging a new fee for this reason is certainly invalid.

    > T-Mobile employees will also be paying the fee. This is virtually meaningless, as these T-Mobile employees are simply a subset of T-Mobile customers. Would you be happy to accept the above-noted recycling fee simply because government agencies were similarly forced to pay it? I think not, and using this as a support for charging your customers a new fee is rather pitiful.

    T-Mobile used to be a company that prided itself on its customer relationship. The unilateral imposition of the paper bill fee is a decided step in the opposite direction of this philosophy. I suggest that you direct your company to reconsider its choice in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    T-Mobile customer

  5. T-Mobile Reverses Paper Billing Fee | PhoneNews.com

    [...] this were to have gone into effect, T-Mobile customers would have been forced to switch to paperless billing or pay an extra surcharge to get a paper bill. Trackback | Permalink [...]

Leave a Reply