Verizon offers to settle shocking $17,500 bill
Carlos Mota, of North Philadelphia, got a shocking $17,500 "data roaming" bill from Verizon Wireless after a trip to his native Dominican Republic. Verizon says it's offered to settle the charges for about $1,000.
Verizon offers to settle shocking $17,500 bill
Jeff Gelles, Inquirer Business Columnist
Did you see the Daily News' great (and disturbing) story last week about a North Philadelphia man, Carlos Mota, who got a shocking "data roaming" bill from Verizon Wireless after a trip to his native Dominican Republic?
Mota had a laptop computer and a wireless modem, and said he used the laptop twice, for about 90 minutes, before he got a warning about "data roaming" and immediately stopped accessing the Internet.
When he returned to Philadelphia, he got a $17,505 bill that ranks among the largest "bill shocks" reported to the Federal Communications Commission, which is campaigning to help consumer and carriers avoid unintended cell-phone charges that can run into the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Mota's story broke - click here to read Stephanie Farr's Daily News piece - just after Verizon Wireless agreed to pay the government $25 million to settle a 10-month investigation into generally much smaller bill shocks. In addition to that payment, the carrier said it would refund at least $52.8 million to about 15 million customers who have gotten unexpected pay-as-you-go data charges since November 2007 for data that, in most cases, they weren't trying to download.
Mota's case is different in that he knew he was buying data - he just thought his $60.75-per-month fee would cover it all. Until he noticed the "data roaming" warning on his computer, he wasn't aware of the potential for charges that in some countries can run as high as $20 per megabyte, according to Verizon Wireless spokesman Sheldon Jones.
"We're talking about trying to settle his account with a reasonable payment," Jones told me. "At this point, we're waiting to hear back." Jones says Verizon Wireless has said it's willing to take about $1,000, paid out over a six-month period.
Of course, almost any Verizon Wireless customer would classify a $1,000 hit as "bill shock," even if it's a lot less shocking than $17,500.
There's got to be a better way to control this kind of costly surprise. As Mota's niece told the Daily News, "For them, it means nothing, but for him, it means his life. It would ruin him."
Jones said he didn't know how much Verizon Wireless pays its data-roaming partner in the Dominican Republic. But he says, "We pay carriers overseas for that service."
Click here to read about the FCC's efforts to combat bill shock.
Carlos isn't the only one that has experienced this, but the fact of the matter is he failed to make sure he KNEW what the Terms of Serivce were: http://www.snydeysense.com/2010/04/13/verizon-data-roaming-nightmare/— mccarte1
There is a difference between making a profit and gouging. It is not OK for companies to charge $500 for a 2x4 after a hurricane when that same 2x4 costs $5 before the hurricane. Charging somebody, anybody, $17k for roaming internet charges is gouging, not a company making a profit. Just because the contract says .02/min for roaming does not make it right. It is especially unreasonable when other customers are charged much less than that. THAT was the point.— jp8899
Comment removed.
$17K is excessive, but at what point is the consumer held responsible? Like many have said before me ... a few clicks on Verizon's website and a 5 minute call to customer service would have solved the problem. It's the exact same thing I do before I travel.— JimW- It's disappointing to see that so many readers support Verizon, a multi-million dollar company that frequently boasts on its commercials that the vast majority of Americans rely on its services.
A company is only as good as its relationship to its customers. Because it is such a popular company, Verizon should encourage better business practice with its customers. Just as credit card companies flag unusual purchases, Verizon should similarly be required to notify its customers of unusual activity/exorbitant fees.
Carlos Mota undoubtedly could have been more proactive in checking over his agreement with Verizon. But Verizon and other big business companies do not design agreements and contracts to be easy to learn, with the specific intent of nabbing extra money from its clients.
Readers should support Mr. Mota.
Mr. Mota's case is extreme in the penalties he has accumulated. But this has happened to all of us. Unfortunately, people don't seem to recognize that they too are victims, and instead have to revert to pointing out Mr. Mota's race and financial situation to divert the conversation. It is a shame that people have succumbed to blaming their fellows in continued support of big business, that they now see speaking out as wrong.
A company is only as good as its customers allow it to be. That is what our country was originally built on; the minions having the power to control its leaders, and the fight for Independence from authoritative England.
— theritztorubble -
"Just because the contract says .02/min for roaming does not make it right." Is it just me, or is the key word in this sentence "contract"? Even though he's been here for something like 23 years and can't speak English, he could have called and pressed dos for espanol. I traveled to Europe this summer and took my blackberry with me. What did I do first? I called my provider to find out what the charges were for calls and internet use in the countries I was visiting. It was pretty easy. It was expensive, but didn't come as a surprise.
— stefek23 
Substitute Verizon bill for ARM and you have the housing crisis. What my interest rates could go up? I was only paying for interest? You expected me to read the contract and understand the transaction I was entering?- This is one of those logistics you check whenever you leave the country. Basic mistake by this guy and now he's crying foul. Tough break, but you can't abuse the system and then cry ignorance after the fact. Sixty something dollars for unlimited internet doesn't mean anywhere in the world!— pb35
- I'm not defending Verizon but being annoyed with the lack of willingness to take reaponsibility for our own actions. I'm in France right now and I called A T & T to find out what I need to know about using my phone overseas. Sorry, bu I think he owes the 17.5k. I know that I should only use my iPhone when I have a wireless connection. Otherwise I just keep my phone off. But then again I called A T & T to find out what would coat and when.— PotteryPete
- He no speak English. He no work. He on disability. He be poor. Then how the heck does he fly around the world with a laptop?— Mayor Squidward
- Gouge? Too much for Verizon to charge? How much should we set that Verizon can charge? Mr. Mota needs to man up and take responsibility and also own up to more than 90 minutes on the Internet. Something more is going on. I think Verizon should pursue this.— PotteryPete
- This issue is 50/50.......he should not have taken his modem to another countery perhaps he was not aware of the charges.
His monthly covers local IM sure there is a communication issue.
IM guessing he can't afford the low or high bill perhaps some fair settelment.......I wish the best for him he should take some responsibility he should have tried to contact verizon be he made the trip. He can't afford the low or high bill perhaps they should make him work it off somehow to get part of there money back. Best of luck senor.....— merchandiser - I actually had a party when my Verizon wireless contract ran out...They are vile scumbags. They still want an extra $10 for the week after the contract expired...I sent them a letter inviting them to sue me for it— JSaq
- If you think Verizon has stopped this practice, they haven't. Since they lost that last judgement against them, they have raised administration charges again this month. Check your bills.— Pinkie
- He should pay the full amount.— sam_i_am
Reach Jeff at jgelles@phillynews.com.
