how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
401 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I'm actually all for this If you take off your "greedy evil corporations" blinders and actually break it down, it makes sense for people like us.
If you're like me, you almost always do routine transactions over the Web. And, the service provider saves money on transactions like this, because they don't have to pay for the human in the loop (who simply inputs what I tell them on the phone into the same system, after all).
If the service provider rolls the cost of human customer service evenly across all their subscribers, then I am paying extra for those subscribers who aren't like me.
Therefore, AT&T charging extra for paying your bill by phone actually benefits me by keeping my subscriber price down. | |
|   rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: I'm actually all for this Of course this is the same reasoning used by banks way back when they introduced ATMs. They said it was going to save money, but some analyses showed that it did not really save money because of the cost of servicing and maintaining the equipment. On-line billing is different, of course, since there is not much additional hardware involved as with a host of ATMs. Nevertheless, one consequence is fewer live persons to handle customers. The banks reduced the number of tellers and this has led to longer lines inside the banks when customers really needed (or thought they needed) to handle transactions in person. I've had this happen when I found that an ATM could not accept my deposit because the check could not be read by the scanner. This necessitated a drive to a branch office and then more fooling around. Automated systems don't always make things easier, and may not save as much money as the company estimates. | |
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I'm actually all for this I agree that ATMs are more of a feature than a cost savings. I also agree that "on-line billing is different", companies with millions of subs (as AT&T has) save TONS of money by (a) not mailing out bills and (b) allowing online payment, keeping the human out of the loop (either phone or opening mail with a check in it).
Regarding your ATM not accepting your deposit because it couldn't scan your check... doesn't your ATM have an envelope deposit feature? I thought they all did. I use this all the time. If I were in your situation I'd just mail it in rather than wasting time and money driving to the bank. Or, I'd open a free checking account at a bank that had a branch very near me, so I wouldn't have to go out of my way to deposit checks.
PS -- I hate checks. Aren't they a pain? My mother-in-law lives in our town now and she insists on writing us little checks all the time when we shop for her. Then she freaks out if we don't deposit them right away because she can't deal with outstanding checks beyond one statement period. arrgh... (sorry for the diversionary rant) | |
|
| | Why charge extra. How about a 5% discount if you pay online and/or automated phone system. | |
| | | | Re: I'm actually all for this That would be ideal, but we all know fees will never go down.
If it was honestly about trying to cut costs, they would do that.... give a discount for doing things automagically that don't require human interaction.
-I | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I'm actually all for this said by themessiah8 :
Are you truly this dumb? In theory, yes, you are paying for others.
Why was the name-calling necessary? You're just making yourself look bad, you know.
The reality however is that even if they didn't have any liver person attending you, they would still charge you a fee.
Assuming you meant "live" person...
you're wrong. The fee is exactly for the case when you call and speak with a live person to pay your bill, as opposed to using any of the automated methods (or sending in a check). | |
|
| |
|
