AT&T is annoyed with some of its smart phone customers. They’re saying that three percent of smart phone users are consuming 40 percent of total available bandwidth on their cellular network.  AT&T is saying that they’re looking at incentives to get these high-bandwidth users to "reduce or modify their usage."

Of course, “incentive” is almost certainly going to mean “higher fees.”

Every company and service has its power users, and this is especially true in the tech sector.  This is not something that should have caught AT&T by surprise.  They partnered with Apple on the iPhone, which can (technically) only be used on AT&Ts network, offer so-called “unlimited” data plans (which are finally revealed to have a 5Gb cap, nevermind that “unlimited” in fact means “uncapped” ), and then get upset that people actually use their data plan.

Should Time Warner Cable charge people who leave their TVs on 24/7 more money?  Should your gym charge you more because you use the gym twice per day when most of their customers go three times per week?

This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but bear with me a moment.  Time Warner and your gym (and countless other companies) decided on a fair market price for their products and they charge that price.  AT&T should have done the exact same thing, but they didn’t, and that’s where the problem lies.  AT&T, rather than stepping up and improving their service, is choosing instead to change the rules and punish their most devoted customers.

At the other end of the spectrum, let’s talk about propane.  I recently moved into a rural home that has a propane tank, which is used to run the furnace and tankless water heater.  The company that fills our tank charges a sliding “tank usage fee” for customers who use less than a certain amount of propane in a calendar year. This fee is substantial, equal to roughly a fifth to a quarter of a full tank.  We strive to be very energy-efficient, so we’ll almost certainly be hit by this fee.

We’ll get charged more because we don’t use enough of their service, which makes no sense whatsoever. Following the logic behind this fee, doesn’t it follow that non-customers, who don’t use any of their product, should be charged even more?  I have to wonder what they’d charge us if we stopped using their service altogether.

Imagine if Citgo or BP did the same when it came to fuel for your car.

If you’re going to offer a product, offer a product and charge a fair price for it.  Punishing your customers for using too much, or too little, of your product just tarnishes your reputation, breeds resentment, and encourages them to take their business elsewhere.

Picture courtesy thejonoakley

I saw an article on MSNBC.com yesterday that really raised my eyebrows.  A traveler had reserved a car from Alamo for three days and paid the $390 reservation in advance.  His flight was canceled and he had to delay picking up the car by a day.  He contacted Alamo and they said they’d hold the car for him.  The traveler ended up only using the car for two days, meaning the time he was supposed to return the car had not changed.  Alamo, since he’d essentially changed his reservation, charged him an additional $1116.

The traveler apparently contacted Christopher Elliott, a Travel columnist for Tribune Media Services, who wrote the article on MSNBC.com.

Mr. Elliott writes:

I suggested you write a brief, polite e-mail to Alamo, asking it to reverse the charges. The response? A snippy note that said, “Any changes to the basis of the reservation makes the rate subject to change,” and adding, “We are disappointed that this policy is a source of dissatisfaction for you.” Alamo denied your request.

Let’s take those quotes one at a time.

“Any changes to the basis of the reservation makes the rate subject to change”

This policy is far too black and white to be considered fair.  After all, in this case, the car simply sat on the lot for a day – which was still paid for – and returned at the time originally agreed upon.  This situation cost Alamo absolutely nothing.

Allow me to state the obvious: Policies like these are used to justify fleecing customers, most of whom won’t put up a fight. Also, black and white policies like this strongly indicate how lazy a company will be when it comes to customer service.

“We are disappointed that this policy is a source of dissatisfaction for you.”

Who on Earth would actually be satisfied by this policy?  How is it reasonable to charge someone over $1000 for picking up a car a day late, especially when the return time hadn’t changed?

The travel industry in particular is absolutely rife with these ridiculous policies.  (Example: Airline change fees.  You have to pay the airline a fee if you want to change your ticket.  Do airlines ever reimburse you for delays or cancellations that change your schedule?  No.)

After Mr. Elliot contacted Alamo on the traveler’s behalf, they refunded the extra charge.

It shouldn’t take a consumer advocate contacting you with a complaint to get you to simply be reasonable.  What Alamo should have done in the first place is obvious – merely let the original charges stand.  If they’d done that, there would have been no problem at all.