Recently, I ran into two colleagues, both of whom told me that they always read this space, even though the content sometimes gets a bit overly technical. With an interest in keeping them engaged (and they KNOW who they are, AK and HC), I want to present 3 tantalizing telecom tidbits, none of which is terribly techie, but all of which are interesting, if not totally relevant. They’re about off-shore call centers, and AT&T Mobility’s less than optimal behavior. Let me say up front that AT&T Mobility is hardly alone in its arguably slimy actions—it’s just that, to the best of my knowledge, it’s the only major [wireless] telecommunications provider that’s been caught engaging in these activities. At least this week.
The Perils of Call Center Outsourcing
Most people dislike off-shore call centers. In fact, the largest telecommunications companies know that Americans dislike off-shore call centers with such intensity that those largest companies often use the repatriating off-shore call centers as an incentive to encourage regulatory bodies to approve otherwise less than desirable combinations (read: AT&T’s recent unsuccessful attempt to acquire T-Mobile). Much to the dismay of those of us who have reached out and touched one of these call centers, what may have been saved by the companies providing overseas call center support has been lost in customer satisfaction. In response to a number of factors, but predominantly the general lack of customer satisfaction combined with the very tight American economy, on December 7th, Congressmen Timothy Bishop (D., NY) and David McKinley (R., WV) introduced the U.S. Call Center and Consumer Protection Act (HR 3596) to the House of Representatives. With a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, not to mention the support of the 700,000 members of the Communications Workers of America, there’s a chance that the bill might see the light of day. What’s most interesting though are the components of the bill.
The terms will apply to any company that
In addition, the Secretary of Labor must also maintain a public list of these companies, with each entity remaining on the list of up to 3 years after each such identification. More dramatically, and with only limited exceptions, any entity on the list will be ineligible for any direct or indirect federal grants or guaranteed loan programs for a period of 5 years from that time they were added to the list. The bill also contains a provision requiring federal and state agencies to give preference in civilian or defense contracting to U.S. companies not on the list.
Also under the bill, call center agents located outside of the United States must disclose their physical location at the beginning of each call, and must transfer a call back to a U.S. based call center upon customer request. This issue has been raised before, although I suspect that the ineligibility for federal grants and/or the preferential treatment offered to those entities that do not local call centers off shore may draw the most attention. As is always the case, stay tuned.
On December 12, 2011, the Florida AG’s office announced that it had reached a settlement with AT&T Mobility, “resolving allegation that the company charged Florida customers’ wireless device bills for a service that those customers neither ordered nor wanted.” Specifically, what has been estimated is that more than 600,000 AT&T Mobility customers were charged for Roadside Assistance at $2.99 per month without approval from the affected customers’ bills over a 7 year period.
In addition to providing affected customers with a full refund, AT&T will, in be donating prepaid phone cards to members of the military, funds to Florida law enforcement and a whopping $1.2 million to the Florida Attorney General’s office to cover enforcement and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this matter. More importantly, however, AT&T Mobility must, going forward, provide any future customers with multiple disclosures concerning charges added to their bills, as well as providing customer with an easy way to opt out. Customers will also be notified 5 days in advance of the end of the free or trial period, as well as the costs of each add-on service.
While the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California began the new year (1/3/12) by granting AT&T Mobility’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action is ostensibly about arbitration (duh), the nature of the issue behind the claim is much more interesting. The claim contends that AT&T Mobility aggressively marketed its wireless “service to users of smartphones and other data hungry devices,” despite knowing that its network infrastructure could not possibly accommodate the demands that the increased usage would cause. (Blau v. AT&T Mobility, No. C 11-00541, 2012 WL 10546 (N.D. Cal.)). Access to network infrastructure was certainly one of the most compelling arguments AT&T Mobility made in its attempted acquisition of T-Mobile in late 2011, although given the time that it takes for a class action to work its way through the system, that deal may have been in its infancy—if in existence at all—when this claim was made and class certified. Translation: the sale of “vaporware” is rarely a successful long term strategy.
Thomas Peters’ formula for success is simple: “underpromise and overdeliver.” Unfortunately whoever was making marketing decisions at AT&T Mobility must have skipped this class.