Qwest Listens, Partially Drops 'Convenience Fee'You'll no longer have to pay Qwest -- to pay Qwest. 04:52PM Friday Mar 12 2010 by Karl Bodetags: prices · business · consumers · Qwest.netLast month we reported that Qwest had joined a relatively new trend among broadband carriers: making users pay Qwest -- so they can pay Qwest. The company recently implemented a new $4 fee for users who want to pay their Qwest bill by phone, and a new $1 bill for those who'd like to pay their Qwest bill via credit card at the official Qwest website. As this thread in our forums attests, the majority of users weren't particularly impressed with the new surcharge. According to a new post in our forums, users are being told that Qwest is going to drop the fee, presumably after consumer and media backlash: Thank you again for you taking the time to write to us about the payment convenience fee. We listened to your feedback, and effective immediately have stopped charging a convenience fee on self service payment options for payments made through our online and automated telephone response system. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve you. Broadband Reports confirmed the change with Qwest. "Yes, there are no longer fees associated with one-time payments made via the phone using only our automated voice system -- those that do not involve a live agent at any point -- and one-time payments made on qwest.com," Qwest spokesperson Monica Martinez tells Broadband Reports. "There is still a $4 convenience fee for payments made via phone with a live agent," notes Martinez. It's nice to see Qwest respond to criticism and consumer concerns, even if the convenience charge for speaking to a live human being remains intact. Such fees are something that's increasingly common among several carriers, including AT&T and Sprint. It's one of several ways carriers take the regular cost of doing business and add it via below the line fees, allowing companies to quietly impose rate hikes while keeping advertised prices the same.
Related:- Qwest Sued Over DSL Early Termination Fees
- Qwest Lowers Price Of 20Mbps Tier
- Qwest Offers New $79.99 Bundle Offer
- Qwest Latest To Offer Netbooks
- Qwest Hits Users With New 'Convenience Fees'
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Lnks
- Thursday Evening Links
|
 ImBatman
join:2004-04-21
Lancaster, CA
| They can shove their fees We dont have to pay these fees. Just join together and say HELL NO!
It works.
It's because most people don't care about $4 here $2 there that they get away with it. Its time to remind them WE pay the bills and we're not gonna just start paying fees because THEY want more money. | |
|  | 
MIllIlITER
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: They can shove their fees said by ImBatman  :We dont have to pay these fees. Just join together and say HELL NO! It works. It's because most people don't care about $4 here $2 there that they get away with it. Its time to remind them WE pay the bills and we're not gonna just start paying fees because THEY want more money. Send in a check by mail or pay thru your bank's Bill Pay system. Most banks I've seen charge no fees at all to pay bills thru their online systems. You pay no fees that way to those billing you. | |
| | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: They can shove their fees said by MIllIlITER :Most banks I've seen charge no fees at all to pay bills thru their online systems. I think, that's why Qwest wanted to charge people who pay using methods that cost Qwest more money to process the payment. ACH bill pay doesn't cost Qwest nor the customer anything. It's like writing an electronic check.
It won't surprise me if someday banks try to monetize ACH bill pay. But, for now it seems like they have an incentive to get everyone to use it instead of paper checks (lower cost to the bank). And, to get everyone to use it instead of credit cards so they have a user base to compete against credit-card companies (and presumably monetize it eventually).
It doesn't seem like a big consumer "win" to force Qwest to distribute higher-cost payment processing to everyone who doesn't contribute to those higher costs.
Mark | |
| | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
1 edit | Re: They can shove their fees Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: They can shove their fees said by Karl Bode :Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. C'mon, Karl. The "they wouldn't pass the savings on anyway" line is becoming circular. You use it for *everything*.
The same could be said that, by not allowing Qwest to recover costs more specifically from those who incur them, Qwest will just use it as an excuse to raise rates sooner (being the evil corporation just looking for an excuse to line its own pockets).
Or, we should just get rid of tiers? We know ISPs like Qwest won't really pass on the savings of lower-tier users to those users. So, they might as well be charged the same price as higher-tier users?
Using telephone operators to take payment information costs more. So does processing Visa payments.
Mark | |
| | | | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: They can shove their fees said by amigo_boy :said by Karl Bode :Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. C'mon, Karl. The "they wouldn't pass the savings on anyway" line is becoming circular. You use it for *everything*. The same could be said that, by not allowing Qwest to recover costs more specifically from those who incur them, Qwest will just use it as an excuse to raise rates sooner (being the evil corporation just looking for an excuse to line its own pockets). Or, we should just get rid of tiers? We know ISPs like Qwest won't really pass on the savings of lower-tier users to those users. So, they might as well be charged the same price as higher-tier users? Using telephone operators to take payment information costs more. So does processing Visa payments. Mark Actually Mark free.fr in France has one tier, one price, and provides everyone with the best service they can afford while guaranteeing its owner a certain margin. They charge $40/month for a triple play of voice, internet, and TV and the owner takes $10/month margins on the service, using the rest of the money to upgrade speeds, build FTTH to major metropolises, and now to move into the wireless service business. So yes, one tier does make sense, especially considering the cost of provisioning 1.5 mbit/s versus 3mbit/s to a customer is virtually the same. | |
|
| 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| In my opinion, Quest is an evil corporation, just dirty. The audacity of a few executives who are so out of touch with society to think something like that would float. Really, to charge a fee so someone can give you money.
Pure scumbags, the poop of society.
In fact, IMO, quest is swine, a vulgar little maggot. A worthless bag of filth. A canker. A sore that won't go away. A putrescent mass, a walking vomit.
Those executives in my opinion are spineless little worms deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. jerks, cads, weasels.
Their life a monument to stupidity. A stench, a reuvlsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
They are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying their alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired them and then killed themselfs in recognition of what they had done.
So what else is happening? | |
| | | 
OCZ
The Former Pocket
join:2009-05-15
Saint Paul, MN
·Virgin Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: They can shove their fees said by tomkb :In my opinion, Quest is an evil corporation, just dirty. The audacity of a few executives who are so out of touch with society to think something like that would float. Really, to charge a fee so someone can give you money. Pure scumbags, the poop of society. In fact, IMO, quest is swine, a vulgar little maggot. A worthless bag of filth. A canker. A sore that won't go away. A putrescent mass, a walking vomit. Those executives in my opinion are spineless little worms deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. jerks, cads, weasels. Their life a monument to stupidity. A stench, a reuvlsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. They are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying their alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired them and then killed themselfs in recognition of what they had done. Remind me to NEVER piss off Tomkb. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: They can shove their fees Seriously. | |
|
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Well this rant is almost up to Duckman standards but it doesn't have the nice cadence a Duckman rant has.  | |
| | | | | | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | What is that, the WoW insult engine? | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | ... tell us how you really feel would ya? lol | |
| | | 
shoegazer
Premium
join:2009-06-22
Las Vegas, NV | gee dude are you sure you don't leave anything out, i hope i never have it so bad i have to use all then words in one sentence...lol.. | |
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by ImBatman :We dont have to pay these fees. You're paying for the added costs of operators taking payments over the phone, and Qwest paying 3.5% to credit card companies.
It's just a question of whether those costs should be apportioned to those who pay by check (and ACH bill pay)? Or, paid entirely by those who incur the costs?
Mark | |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Fees. "I'm sorry, [insert billing company name here] but we charge a $5.00 'make payment' fee to pay any and all bills."
Then continues with, "Would you like to deduct that from our bill now or send a check / apply a credit later?"
If they can do it, so can we.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com | |
| | 
anonfornow
| Re: Fees. You joke but my father actually did something like that once. Some company kept sending him a bill for something he never ordered or asked for and he kept replying with certified letters essentially saying "I don't know you and I'm not paying you." Finally, he got so fed up that he wrote the company again and cc'ed the letter over to our Attorney General and he sent the company a bill along with it for all of the time he had spent correcting their billing errors. Imagine his surprise when a few weeks later he received a check from the company for the amount that he billed and they no longer sent him erroneous bills... | |
|
cdbma
join:2003-01-19
Bolton, MA
| reminds me of... Airline bag fees. DMV/RMV fees. I can pay taxes online in my town - for a fee. It's a new world. Nobody raises prices. They just add fees. User fee. Convenience fee. Online fee. Paper bill fee.
Ultimately, I predict that everything we use will be free - just pay the accompanying fees! | |
| |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: reminds me of... Yes, seriously.
Your bill total is $0. * You'll note we haven't raised rates in sixteen years!
* -- does not include $7.00 bandwidth transit fee, $14 support fee, $3 regulatory recovery charge, $20 hyperbole and obfuscation tax, $4 RIAA piracy tax, and additional $17 per gigabyte overuse surcharge. | |
|
ZipZilla
join:2005-07-09
Ladson, SC | the fee for paying a live agent should be $80 anything self-serve should be free.
but requiring a person should cost $80.
mailing a paper check or money order should have a $50 fee.
let's all move into the 21st century together and embrace the cashless society | |
| 
Tron4Net
join:2010-01-14
Corrales, NM | I said it once I'll say it...... I said it once I'll say it again! This turd needs to get flushed down the toilet!! When the netizens band together there is no stronger force! | |
| |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by Tron4Net :I said it once I'll say it again! This turd needs to get flushed down the toilet!! When the netizens band together there is no stronger force! I'm sure the advanced users who telephone their payments are profusely thankful.
For everyone else... (yawn).
Mark | |
| | | OCP
Premium
join:2004-10-11
USA
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... Oh, I was about to "cut the cord" over that $1 fee to pay online. No meh here. $25 for basic service with no long distance. BS. Prepaid cell service is cheaper, for as much as I use the telephone. I'm still teetering on the edge of doing it. It's one less bill to pay every month. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by OCP :$25 for basic service with no long distance. BS. Prepaid cell service is cheaper, for as much as I use the telephone. I'm still teetering on the edge of doing it. It's one less bill to pay every month. I ditched Qwest almost 2 years ago. I use MagicJack for as much phone service as I can. And, T-Mobile's pre-paid cell plan as a backup (and primary contact for important contacts).
MJ costs $20 a year plus an initial $20 for the USB device. Nearly unlimited long distance. A phone number in any available area code.
T-Mobile is $100 a year for 1000 minutes. Any unused minutes will be extended another year when you buy another 1000.
I've saved a lot of money compared to Qwest at $30 a month (including a long-distance plan). I needed a cell phone anyway. So, I don't count the cost of T-Mobile. It's less than the monthly cell plan I had before MJ.
The only caveat is that MJ can be a bit of a huckster product. Lots of drama. Occasional deterioration of service. Hours of ineffective chat support if you're unfortunate enough to require support.
If you're somewhat computer proficient and don't mind the potential of headaches (and everyone in the house has cell phones they can use as backups) give it a try. You can save some serious money at $1.67 per month.
Mark | |
| | | | | smithduluth
join:2006-10-26
Duluth, MN
1 edit | Re: I said it once I'll say it...... The credit card I used to register for auto-pay a few years ago had to be replaced due to a fraudulent charge. When I went to the Qwest web site to change the card, registering a credit card was no longer an option. I use credit cards as much as possible for the rebates, I get a rebate versus nothing with ACH. I called CS and they changed the credit card for me so I could keep getting my rebates. BTW I never carry a balance on them. | |
| | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by smithduluth :I use credit cards as much as possible for the rebates, I get a rebate versus nothing with ACH. But, those cash-back rebates and free coffee pots aren't free, are they? Someone has to pay for them, right?
Credit Card companies are just giving you a cut of the 3% they charge the seller. Qwest is basically paying for your free coffee pot. That adds to the cost of their doing business.
Let's look at this another way.
If a new credit-card company offered 50% cash-back on all purchases, and accomplished this by charging the merchant a 100% transaction fee, would you criticize Qwest for adding a $50 fee for paying with that card?
I'm not in love with corporations. But, I wouldn't fault a corporation for charging ala carte fees to customers who cost them more than the average customer. The idea that it's all just too blurry (and there are no averages) to justify is just a rationalization for getting free stuff at someone else's expense.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | smithduluth
join:2006-10-26
Duluth, MN
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by amigo_boy :said by smithduluth :I use credit cards as much as possible for the rebates, I get a rebate versus nothing with ACH. But, those cash-back rebates and free coffee pots aren't free, are they? Someone has to pay for them, right? Credit Card companies are just giving you a cut of the 3% they charge the seller. Qwest is basically paying for your free coffee pot. That adds to the cost of their doing business. Let's look at this another way. If a new credit-card company offered 50% cash-back on all purchases, and accomplished this by charging the merchant a 100% transaction fee, would you criticize Qwest for adding a $50 fee for paying with that card? I'm not in love with corporations. But, I wouldn't fault a corporation for charging ala carte fees to customers who cost them more than the average customer. The idea that it's all just too blurry (and there are no averages) to justify is just a rationalization for getting free stuff at someone else's expense. Mark It sounds like I am doing something immoral by charging purchases on a credit card that gives a rebate. Since when has it become not PC to try and get the best deal for myself and my family. If a vendor is willing to accept a credit card to help them sell their product, why should I not accept that offer? | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by smithduluth :Since when has it become not PC to try and get the best deal for myself and my family. I don't mind you doing what's in the interest of yourself and your family.
Do you mind those using lower-cost ACH payment methods would like the cost of their service be less? So that they and their families don't subsidize your higher-cost credit cart kickback scheme?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | 
thender
HTC
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | said by amigo_boy :said by smithduluth :I use credit cards as much as possible for the rebates, I get a rebate versus nothing with ACH. But, those cash-back rebates and free coffee pots aren't free, are they? Someone has to pay for them, right? Credit Card companies are just giving you a cut of the 3% they charge the seller. Qwest is basically paying for your free coffee pot. That adds to the cost of their doing business. Let's look at this another way. If a new credit-card company offered 50% cash-back on all purchases, and accomplished this by charging the merchant a 100% transaction fee, would you criticize Qwest for adding a $50 fee for paying with that card? I'm not in love with corporations. But, I wouldn't fault a corporation for charging ala carte fees to customers who cost them more than the average customer. The idea that it's all just too blurry (and there are no averages) to justify is just a rationalization for getting free stuff at someone else's expense. Mark But why can't I do it?
I'm shopping around for merchant account services to accept credit via my cellphone & a bluetooth reader, and most of these contracts say if I pass my fee onto customers in any way, I'm in breach and they can boot me, because it discourages the use of credit. I'm sure in the ones where this clause wasn't blatantly obvious, that I missed it and it will be found buried somewhere else in the TOS.
Why does Qwest get to get away with it? Because they're a big company?
Fuck that. Either the small businessman gets to pass fees onto customers, or none of us can. It's not right that they get to do it just because they are the only ones providing a semi-essential utility in many areas.
I am no fan of credit, and a lot of what you say, I agree with. What I take issue with is your implication that Qwest has the right to charge a fee many stores, studios, repair shops, delis, and so on cannot charge because the TOS says they can't pass the fee on to their customers.
--
Macbook repair in NYC | |
| | | | | | | | TheRogueX
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... They'll never actually come out and say that's what they're charging you for. And by the time the money is paid to the merchant account services provider, it's gone through so many "hands" that there's no way to prove it came from you.
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png | |
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: I said it once I'll say it...... said by TheRogueX :They'll never actually come out and say that's what they're charging you for. Exactly. They can call it an "express payment fee."
I have a credit-card provider who does this. I can pay my credit card online using an ACH transfer from a bank account. But, it takes them 5 days to process it. If I forget to schedule my payment, I can check a little box saying I'm willing to pay $18 for an "express payment" (something they'll move to the front of the line and manually process that day.).
I agree with "thender" that merchants have to be careful how they do this. But, it's also ironic that credit card companies prohibit merchants from recovering the added costs of using credit cards -- while recovering the added costs involved with ad hoc payments from customers.
I think Qwest would have been better served using a "divide and conquer" strategy. First charge a "convenience fee" for payments requiring a live operator. Most credit card users would probably go along with this. It's easy to understand that operators cost money.
After a 2-3 years of establishing that baseline, impose a "convenience fee" on credit-card customers who don't use live operators to accept their payment. It's not a fee to recover the costs charged to merchants by credit card companies. It's a fee to recover the costs of accepting credit card payments over the web site which was developed for debit/ACH payers. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.).
said by thender :Why does Qwest get away with it? Because they're a big company? Higher-volume merchants pay lower transaction fees than Bill & Ted's Bong Shop. It sounds like credit-card companies recognize that these partners have more value and clout.
Mark | |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Since when has... .... the "live operator" been a part of "the regular cost of doing business"....?
I think that what's more valid is to say that it took far more time for Qwest to catch up to charging a fee for a live agent taking a payment than anything else.
"It's one of several ways carriers take the regular cost of doing business and add it via below the line fees, allowing companies to quietly impose rate hikes while keeping advertised prices the same."
I'm sorry, but that "opinion" is just that... for MORE years than not, operators NEVER took payments over the phone.. "customer service" was there to answer questions about bills, order new service, change existing service, and disconnect service... but taking payments over the phone didn't become popular really until the 2000's...
I think too many people call in to make payments vs sending them in... which is fine.. but, now that there is internet connections and automated phone systems that can do it, for christ sakes people, stop taking up the time of customer service reps time from people that have needs that CAN'T be addressed elsewhere.
When was the last time you had to sit on hold waiting for someone to help you with a service need? ... those hold times are increasing large in part by people too lazy to use the net, the automated service, or sending a payment in. Consider that $4.00 fee payment for your time to have to wait..
Two things:
1) Cable operators mostly get penalized when they don't answer the phones fast enough... (usually within 30 seconds) so when people are calling in to make payments, and taking up a good amount of time of the reps and they're not meeting that time requirement, maybe they have to hire more people to handle those calls that quite honestly are not necessary.
2) Everyone here bitches about just how important the internet is in their lives and how it should be a regulated "utility" since it's a necessity and not a luxury.. well...? ...there is no excuse for any of the people in that school of thought to complain.. use that all-so-important internet connection and pay on-line - it's free!
So I'm sorry, but when the news cometary / op-ed piece author cries foul about a fee imposed to "pay with a live operator" and that it's just "the regular cost of doing business" it really isn't.. rather, he should be reminding people about the "importance of the internet"... basically, practice what he preaches. Not to mention, that op-ed post also makes it sound like he's singling out the communications industry when it's been VERY well established that MANY companies are now charging to make payments with live operators other than the communications industry.. as a matter of fact, power, gas, and airlines have been doing it FAR longer than any communication company has... | |
| | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Since when has... I do tend to agree with you. Paying more to deal with a real person makes sense. The fact that they added a charge for paying through an automated system before is the real issue which they fixed. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Since when has... Yea... I agree as well.. and was on record for saying that charging for the internet or automated system was out of line...
My general opinion has been that with the explosion of CHECK CARDS (which really caused the incredible rise of what people call "Credit card payments" in the first place) more people began using that method to pay their bills. At that time, the internet and automated phone payment systems were not readily available.. so yea, operators were taking payments... but, now that just about every provider takes payments on their website and phone systems, people should use those and let the live operator get back to doing what their job was originally intended to be.
And again, I think it is worth repeating... "communications companies" , as Karl likes to beat up for this specific topic, weren't the evil companies that started these fees.. I do believe power and gas companies did this first AND their fees were up to about $15.. I can also point to a number of credit card companies that still charge to make any payments OTHER than checks in the mail.. and some charge you to have your payment simply POSTED in anything less than 4 days of making your payment.. a fee of about $10... Personally, I find cable and phone companies that charge $3 or so on average to take a payment via a live person really to be a "convenience" fee.... is it NOT a convenience to the consumer? I personally find writing out checks and mailing them IN-convenient. | |
|
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
| That is right! Your "no spin" views will probably make you very unpopular amongst the people that want every thing to be free or paid by someone else (the socialist way) or wishes that the price be kept frozen for 100 years even if there is rampant inflation.
For some folks personal responsibility is something very difficult to understand.
Hypothetical tryout example:
-Starting tomorrow morning every citizen in US voluntarily should start recycling.
The result????
(Full disclosure: I am not a tree hugger and I stopped recycling.)
I do agree with some of your views by the way.
--
One can only speak in tongs so many times before landing on a perfectly working spell that would turn anyone in to a frog. | |
| 
benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
| It's Not Just Phone Companies. My power company does this too. There's a fee to process a payment by speaking to someone. I disagree with this, but I can live with that. What really gets me, is that there's a fee to use an automated phone payment system as well, even if you don't have to speak to anyone.
Am I really supposed to believe that it's much cheaper for them to accept a check I send them in the mail? To be fair, I could be missing something. I don't know all the details of the costs involved.
On a different note, my cable company didn't seem to implement an automated phone system until quite recently. Fortunately, they've never charged a fee to make a payment by speaking to someone. | |
| |
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
| Re: It's Not Just Phone Companies. said by benc : My power company does this too.What really gets me, is that there's a fee to use an automated phone payment system as well, even if you don't have to speak to anyone. In some contries in Europe most of the CS and TS phone numbers (95%) are toll numbers (not cheap either) and is a covert way to extort revenue.
If your service goes down (even if is their fault) or need to change personal data you´ll pay just to talk to them.
--
One can only speak in tongs so many times before landing on a perfectly working spell that would turn anyone in to a frog. | |
|
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA | credit cards The credit card companies used to have a rule that merchants could not charge you more for using a credit card. Wonder if they are happy with this new fee. | |
| nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
| Qwests bills wrong lately in their favor. "Thank you again for you taking the time to write to us about the payment convenience fee. We listened to your feedback, and effective immediately have stopped charging a convenience fee on self service payment options for payments made through our online and automated telephone response system. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve you."
Those are the fees they dropped. No way in heck was I going to put my bill on autopay through any account. I guess no one here has experienced the current trend of Qwest bills to be wrong in their favor. A drop of a price for life to full bore cost. Or other fun mistakes. Then call in they say can not correct until next billing cycle. If it was auto deduct then no incentive for them to correct as coming straight from my account.
Sure charge me for a live person to bill me but if it is self serve online or on the phone then why was there a convenience fee when all done through their computer with no assistance? Force me into auto deduct when it seems that currently every third bill is wrong. My dsl is solid as is my phone service however Qwests billing leaves a lot to be desired lately.
I would more likely leave to a competitor. | |
|
twobit
@qwest.net | qwest buck cost them a landline account when they wanted to charge me that buck for online pay i ported my phone that day to a new verizon phone they lost 40 bucks now i pay 15 bucks for my second line and use my magic jack as my landline and no taxes thru qwest on my naked dsl | |
| 
Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | that gave me an idea So i called my cfo today and told him we need to implement a phone answering fee. He went "what?"
then i explained that is a fee we charge people for answering the phone when they call us.
he liked the idea. stay tuned | |
| djcrazy
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
| I noticed this also and that is good for Qwest because I was going to cancel my landline and verizon cell through them. I am sick of being nickel and dimed to death and there is NO way I will authorize auto pay. I have been paying over the phone using a debit card for years now and that new $4 "fee" was an insult. This payment method I use has been this way since the USWest days. | |
| |
| | |
|
|
