Reader response to "No more pussyfootin'"

Reader reaction to the August 19 Mack-inations:

Are you nuts? A financial transaction with no hardcopy? Like lawyers aren't busy enough already. Bad idea. This kind of thinking is what gives regulated monopolies a (deservedly) bad name. The kind of service we give, and will continue to give, our customers is what gives them a (deservedly) good name. If our customers want hardcopy bills, our customers GET hardcopy bills. I'm a network engineer supervising my company’s Internet connectivity, and I laugh at the idea of millions of people doing business by Internet Explorer. Heaven help them.--Dan Sichel, Ponderosa Telephone

Humor aside, I think you missed a great opportunity to provide constructive suggestions to service providers interested in reducing their paper billing costs. I can't speak for a market of consumers, but I can speak for myself. Paper bills can be filed easily, are legally accepted instruments in cases of disputes and are much more difficult and expensive to be platforms for fraud or "phishing." 

Most of the online billing alternatives that have been offered by my service providers (telecoms services, financial services, etc.) provide less value to me as a consumer in several areas. I do pay bills online, but I won't free a service provider from the requirement to bill me in paper unless they will make it worth my time. Citibank only provides online statement access back 90 days. If I want to check something 120 days old (did that hotel double bill me, etc?), I am out of luck online. My paper statement never tells me to "check back later, we are upgrading our system." Lastly, my paper statements seldom ask that I choose a new name (from 5 to 12 letters with no spaces, symbols or punctuation marks) and a new password to forget. Security is such an obvious issue that I won't again mention it.

If I was an service provider and wanted to reduce my billing operational costs, I'd offer online access the my customers' entire billing history, I'd let them download and print their own paper bills, I'd commit to a high availability level, I would have a well communicated and easily understood authentication story and I would share my cost savings with them. Forcing broadband customers to use online billing is like a restaurant asking people who order a steak to bus their own tables. It may reduce your waitress expenses, but it will cost you repeat business.--Timothy Meyers, Equipment sales

Your idea of electronic billing is just hope at the end of the tunnel.

For starters, consumers need to maintain copies of their bills for quite some time and to date not many of the suppliers have even done a halfway decent job of being able to provide that electronic copy. An e-mail is nice, but there is no security in that format, which is definitely a requirement.

To see your full details of a bill on three-to-six web pages does not constitute an acceptable copy of a bill for keeping on my PC. Even if all the pages are saved to your [hard drive], invariably the links don't work correctly and you can't print out a copy of the full itemized bill in most instances.

Companies need to provide [optical character recognition] PDF files or something equivalent of the hard copy of an invoice. With the advancement of  “One-Bill” for numerous services from some large conglomerates, this whole process of electronic billing with detailed billing information is getting farther and farther away. Except for adding confusion over billing, I have yet to figure out what a One-Bill concept does for the consumer.

Until [they get] PDF formatted billing capabilities, I will keep paper copies coming. Lets not force electronic billing until the service is at least livable with.--Dennis McLeod

Mr. McElligott (uh-oh, I hate when they start that way--TM):

I am not sure what exactly you were trying to accomplish with that piece. The shades of satire were rather thin and unfocused. I can only assume you were trying to stir people up for no real reason, and prompt return e-mails so that your employer could increase the size of their mailing list. Well, you have prompted at least one e-mail, but it will be the last. I am discontinuing my subscription to this newsletter. I do not have time for such drivel, and I resent the attempted manipulation.--Terry Trucks, Associate Director, Program Management

Tell ya what. When I get reliable broadband at my rural location, I'll consider on-line bill paying. As it is now, my ISP can lose as many packets on my blistering 19.2 Kbps dial-up as the USPS loses my envelopes. If it rains, or is too hot, or if the wind blows, we get blown off-line trying to maintain 9.6 Kbps. So much for the Information Super Dirt Road. Sometimes people that live in deployed cities take the rest of us for granted, both by thought and deed, and most certainly by implementation of telecom policy, not to mention the nationwide desire to make us their dumping ground.

Sorry, Tim. This one is a clean miss. [Instead] put the effort in Washington to getting universal service that really means universal.--M.A. Edwards

I enjoy reading your articles, but I have to disagree with you this time. I appreciate the convenience of online bill payment, but I don’t appreciate any company that I decide to give my hard earned money to thinking they can “force me” to pay them in whatever fashion they determine. Bottom line… it’s my money and if I want to mail them a box of pennies, it’s legitimate currency and they have to accept it. Years ago when I was a service rep for SBC, I remember a disgruntled customer mailing them a box of pennies for a bill that was around $100. The cost to ship it to them was almost more than the bill. I remember having to haul the box across the street to the bank and have them put it through the currency counter and then exchanging it for a bank check that I could walk back to our office and process. The bank came out and handed me the check along with three Canadian pennies that were included in the box but that they refused to take. I had to call the guy and let him know that I put 3 pennies of my own in so that he wouldn’t have any carryover balance.

By that time, the guy had cooled off and apologized for the whole thing.--Lou Anne Ward, Account Manager, CTA, Inc

You make a pretty good point, that service providers have missed the boat in customer relationship management. Most try to leap from the dock after the boat’s, oh say, half a mile at sea. But electronic bill paying isn’t something I’d force on people. Next thing you know, they’ll want automatic account debiting and I don’t think that should be open to debate.

You use a good example: the telcos forcing us to assume the inside wiring, touchtone and so on. Can you explain why they still bill us 76 cents a month for touchtone? A feature their vaunted switching fabric can’t live without?

One final point: despite the supposed recovery, there are still millions of unemployed or under-employed people out there. Some depend on the float factor you get when you mail in checks. It’s not like it’s deceiving anybody or writing checks that aren’t any good, it’s just that, in this financial environment, the “flexibility” is important sometimes.

I always look forward to reading your columns. There’s always something to agree with. Or not. Keep up the good work!--Wes Hirschhorn

For those over 50 (becoming the bulk of the paying population in many areas), there is distrust for extreme changes. With all the dire warnings about virus infections and Internet scams, they are overly cautious about online bill payment. They want to send a check, and have a record to prove that the money did indeed reach the vendor.  

Online billing? Yes, I agree that should be pushed. It is of enough benefit that the vendor should offer a discount (enticement) for the consumer to change. The vendors will save a great deal if consumers agree to online billing.  
How the vendor receives the money is a totally separate issue--and I for one do not agree in pushing that issue. Online bill payment either utilizes credit cards (many [people] have credit card problems now), or direct withdrawal, and some [people] have enough problem tracking the checks they write without the money "magically" disappearing from their account.  If the vendor wishes to succeed, they won't push for online bill payment.--Lorence Brown, Retired SBC/Ameritech Engineer

>That works fine for about 50-75 % of the people--those with some kind of Internet access. There are a lot of people, including senior citizens who don't have or aren't comfortable with computers--and therefore [the] Internet--who would be left out in the cold. How about a discount for paying on line and have the bill or at least an announcement that you can now access your bill sent via email? Since you save them all that expensive printing and mailing costs, they should pass on the savings. Then there is a real motivation to pay online (it saves you money).--Michael Martini, ICS/NCIC

(For the record, I only suggested that electronic billing be heaped on broadband users.--TM)
 

My first email to you. I agree, but “Where's the Beef?” I don't pay online. I don't know why, but I don't. Maybe because if I did, it would require me log on periodically or maybe I just like the paper to carry around to remind me that I still need to pay. Online would be better. The stamps are becoming a non-trivial expense. But if it is such a great deal, we should share in the benefits. Perhaps we, as online bill payers, could get to be a member of a club that has some benefits for its members--but not more junk email.--John Peters, Network Engineer