Mobile Phones (528 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.14 on 7 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Iago (View user info) at 2004-11-01 18:02:28 EST
INADEQUACY OF CONTROL.
Why do companies not allow credit limits to be set for younger users, or monitor call patterns for the abnormal usage which indicates the abuse of stolen phones?
For example, my 'friends' case involving an undergraduate and Orange, a mobile phone operator. The mobile phone was stolen from his university room and then used very intensively by the thief.
My 'friend' was very foolish, and did not notice until his monthly bill arrived, showing a £800 debt and abnormal use. He agrees that he is liable for the full bill under his contract, but asked his parents for assistance as he does not have the money to pay.
Before speaking to Orange, his parents compared the company's procedures to mitigate their customer's losses with those of their credit card companies.
There are parallels, in that both organisations make heavy use of computers to record and control huge volumes of small transactions. Their products, if stolen and used fraudulently, can lead to losses for their customers. Both operations give some security to their customers in that they disable their products when reported stolen, and also have a degree of security in password control (telephones) and the analogous signature control for cards.
They differ in that the credit card companies also sets a credit limit and operates an antifraud policy of monitoring every account for abnormal or possibly fraudulent use and following up by disabling suspect cards until their user confirms that the abnormal use was proper.
Mobile telephones operators allow neither control.
The interesting difference is that credit card companies lose money through fraudulent use of their cards, in that the slender profit from each fraudulent transaction does not cover the risk of a customer defaulting through an inability to pay. A telephone company profits from stolen calls, in that its main costs are fixed, and so its marginal costs on extra calls are low.
Orange was asked by the parents why they do not protect young people by allowing a credit limit, and received the answer that this "was against company policy". The parents then offered to pay the rentals, the full billed calls that the son actually made, but just their marginal costs of every stolen call. The parents did not offer to pay for the profits made by the company on the stolen calls as they felt that their son's loss was aggravated by their deliberate policy.
The offer was refused and the son is now being subjected to the full and impersonal force of Orange's debt collection procedures, despite being unable to pay without his parents assistance, and so may be forced into court.
I have written this as I feel that his case touches on several issues of public interest which may be hopefully aired.
User Reviews
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2006-08-31 20:50:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No comment
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-08-31 20:27:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The rich kid can fuck off in my book. Fucking Durham students. playing at being poor. Oxbridge rejects the lot of you.
Submitted by The_Cyst_Master (user info) at 2006-03-10 13:14:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WINNER! http://www.ubersite.com/m/84913
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-11-28 05:14:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Lying sack of shit stealing material bastard.
Submitted by dizzyupthegirl (user info) at 2004-11-21 01:50:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The corporate dollar strikes again.. i feel for him i really do, yet having had experice with similar situations, theres fk all that can be done. I didnt know bout that information though, thanks for making me aware.
And thankyou for leaving such a kind note..
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-11-01 18:42:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Orange are bastards indeed.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2004-11-01 18:11:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Nasty. Good luck to him, then.