Overpaid for internet service for 18 months

[54and70more]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I have a MSNTV2, which is simply an internet surfing device, made by Microsoft, a box which simply sits atop your TV. The local phone company provides the internet, plus landline phone and cable TV.
The box was hooked up to dial-up for years. At one point, the local phone company ran broadband to all homes in the area. They hooked up broadband into my home and up to the box. I didn't notice any big difference in the performance, other than it didn't tie up the phone lines.
Anyway, after about a year and a half, out of the blue I clicked on "my account" and discovered that the monthly cost of the service was actually only $9.95 since they'd changed to broadband -- instead of the $21.95 it was for dial-up. But I never knew there were two different prices, so I'd been paying the higher amount for the last 18 months.
I contacted customer service and told them the story. They said I wasn't entitled to a credit or refund of the amount I'd overpaid -- because I "should have known" that the different service would cost different. I told them that's a good one-liner ("you should have known") -- but in reality there are probably countless people who wouldn't know that, nor probably even think about it. Think of all the elderly people who don't even know what broadband even IS, let alone the difference between it and dialup, let alone any cost difference, etc.
My contention is ANY time a customer is found to have overpaid, he is entitled to a redfund, since the company essentially recieved that money "for nothing" -- i.e. they never rendered any goods or services in kind.
As an analogy, let's say you take your car to the shop once a month to have two coats of wax applied, and each month you pay them for it. Then, a year and a half later, you discover that the wax guy mis-understood and was only applying one coat all this time. You ask the shop for a refund of the amount overpaid, since you'd been paying for two coats, and they'd say, "Well, yes, they've only applied one coat -- but you should have known that."
I know this is small potatoes but I at least want to know if I am right in principle. Plus it would seem that Microsoft could afford it, LOL

 

[Zigner]

Did you have a question?

One needs to review their monthly statements. You can hope for something back for them (along the lines of 3 months), but you're not getting 18 months back...

 

[sandyclaus]

Most companies that do online billing accounts usually have policies in place that limit their liability for billing errors or discrepancies.

I've had this same kind of situation happen to me with my cell bill - where the company accidentally misapplied a corporate discount to the wrong phone line (when applied to the main line, the discount is substantial, but when applied to my added line, it was miniscule). It took me almost a year to realize their mistake, and when I did, I had almost the same reaction you did. However, I also got the "you should have known" routine, and now it makes a lot of sense. They limited a refund for THEIR billing error to only 6 months, and they were right - I SHOULD have been paying attention to my bills.

I've heard of people taking issues like this up the ladder to corporate to challenge the refunds, but now many of these companies actually put that liability limit in writing - so even if you escalate, they will still deny you based upon the fact that you should have read their billing policies. Sure, there's going to be those extremely rare occasions when you might get what you want, but don't count on it.

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I have a MSNTV2, which is simply an internet surfing device, made by Microsoft, a box which simply sits atop your TV. The local phone company provides the internet, plus landline phone and cable TV.
The box was hooked up to dial-up for years. At one point, the local phone company ran broadband to all homes in the area. They hooked up broadband into my home and up to the box. I didn't notice any big difference in the performance, other than it didn't tie up the phone lines.
Anyway, after about a year and a half, out of the blue I clicked on "my account" and discovered that the monthly cost of the service was actually only $9.95 since they'd changed to broadband -- instead of the $21.95 it was for dial-up. But I never knew there were two different prices, so I'd been paying the higher amount for the last 18 months.
I contacted customer service and told them the story. They said I wasn't entitled to a credit or refund of the amount I'd overpaid -- because I "should have known" that the different service would cost different. I told them that's a good one-liner ("you should have known") -- but in reality there are probably countless people who wouldn't know that, nor probably even think about it. Think of all the elderly people who don't even know what broadband even IS, let alone the difference between it and dialup, let alone any cost difference, etc.
My contention is ANY time a customer is found to have overpaid, he is entitled to a redfund, since the company essentially recieved that money "for nothing" -- i.e. they never rendered any goods or services in kind.
As an analogy, let's say you take your car to the shop once a month to have two coats of wax applied, and each month you pay them for it. Then, a year and a half later, you discover that the wax guy mis-understood and was only applying one coat all this time. You ask the shop for a refund of the amount overpaid, since you'd been paying for two coats, and they'd say, "Well, yes, they've only applied one coat -- but you should have known that."
I know this is small potatoes but I at least want to know if I am right in principle. Plus it would seem that Microsoft could afford it, LOL

were they sending you a bill every month with the $21.95 fee?

As an analogy, let's say you take your car to the shop once a month to have two coats of wax applied, and each month you pay them for it. Then, a year and a half later, you discover that the wax guy mis-understood and was only applying one coat all this time. You ask the shop for a refund of the amount overpaid, since you'd been paying for two coats, and they'd say, "Well, yes, they've only applied one coat -- but you should have known that."

Not an accurate analogy at all. Your service was the same (same number of coats of wax). The fee was different.


and I want to know what ISP you are getting broadband for $10/month from. Maybe DSL but I have never seen broadband at that price.

 

[Zigner]

Psstt - DSL is (a form of) broadband.

 

[justalayman]

Psstt - DSL is (a form of) broadband.

there is no true definition of broadband but generally, DSL is not included in the broadband group of internet services due to the very limited speeds available over DSL compared to what is typically considered to be broadband.

 

[TheGeekess]

there is no true definition of broadband but generally, DSL is not included in the broadband group of internet services due to the very limited speeds available over DSL compared to what is typically considered to be broadband.

First time I've ever heard that DSL was not considered broadband. I'd better alert DSLreports and Cnet so they can follow up on this.

 

[Zigner]

300 mbps doesn't qualify as broadband? (Yes, I know - an extreme example.)

http://gigaom.com/2010/04/20/dsl-speed-300-mbps/

 

[54and70more]

The local service provides the basic internet connection to the house. I pay them, no problem there. I run my laptop off that also.
But this is for the set-top box I have on my TV, the MSNTV2, a crude device that uses your TV as the monitor and can get email, surf the web, etc. And for THAT device, there's an additional monthly cost, payable to Microsoft, who supplies the network these devices operate on (my email addy suffix is "@webtv.net") -- and that fee is debited from my checking account monthly.
As such, my contention is that (1.) I never had occasion to go into my account information, since the percieved amount due was debited from my bank statement monthly, as prescribed. and (2.) there was no reason to consider the amount to be wrong -- I just discovered it by accident one day messing around, where I saw the display page to check a different box for a different connection. And (3.) if the situation were reversed, they would have started charging me the larger amount, which I similarly wouldn't have expected, as I never ordered the phone company to modify my connection -- another reason I never gave it a thought.
In other words, as I said, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be keenly aware of the different costs of the two connections, since there is certainly a zillion people who don't know the first thing about any of that -- they just use it.
And without regard to any of what I just mentioned, it still seems like any time a citizen is known to have overpaid -- that money is due back to them, either as a refund or credit towards future service.
That's my question: Why would this not be deserving of a refund or credit?

 

[Zigner]

... it still seems like any time a citizen is known to have overpaid -- that money is due back to them, either as a refund or credit towards future service.
That's my question: Why would this not be deserving of a refund or credit?

Do you have some sort of law to back up this "concept"? You agreed to pay a certain amount and you paid a certain amount. You have now negotiated a new, lower rate. Congratulations - too bad you didn't do that earlier.

 

[justalayman]

300 mbps doesn't qualify as broadband? (Yes, I know - an extreme example.)

http://gigaom.com/2010/04/20/dsl-speed-300-mbps/

How many dsl lines have you installed? Me, I lost count long ago. DSL typically runs 1-1.5 Mb.

from your link:

has been able to achieve downstream speeds of about 300 Mbps (over a distance of 400 meters) or 100 Mbps over a distance of one kilometer.

100Mb at one kilometer? That link is an experimental system.

you let me know if you find an advertised speed on a current system that claims in excess of 1.5 Mb.

 

[Zigner]

How many dsl lines have you installed? Me, I lost count long ago. DSL typically runs 1-1.5 Mb.

from your link:



100Mb at one kilometer? That link is an experimental system.

you let me know if you find an advertised speed on a current system that claims in excess of 1.5 Mb.

I had 3Mb several years ago. I've since moved on to fiber.

http://www.dslextreme.com/ up to 15Mbps.

ETA: From the same folks, you can get up to 3000/512 with ADSL for $14.95 per month.

 

[TheGeekess]

How many dsl lines have you installed? Me, I lost count long ago. DSL typically runs 1-1.5 Mb.

from your link:



100Mb at one kilometer? That link is an experimental system.

you let me know if you find an advertised speed on a current system that claims in excess of 1.5 Mb.

CenturyLink has a 10 Mb available. I've speed-tested it a time or two. My own provider offers 10 Mb speeds.

 

[54and70more]

The service provider collected 18 months' worth of fees for services they didn't provide. The amount I was previously paying was commensurate with the service they provided; the last 18 months' fee they collected wasn't.

 

[justalayman]

The local service provides the basic internet connection to the house. I pay them, no problem there. I run my laptop off that also.
But this is for the set-top box I have on my TV, the MSNTV2, a crude device that uses your TV as the monitor and can get email, surf the web, etc. And for THAT device, there's an additional monthly cost, payable to Microsoft, who supplies the network these devices operate on (my email addy suffix is "@webtv.net") -- and that fee is debited from my checking account monthly.
As such, my contention is that (1.) I never had occasion to go into my account information, since the percieved amount due was debited from my bank statement monthly, as prescribed. and (2.) there was no reason to consider the amount to be wrong -- I just discovered it by accident one day messing around, where I saw the display page to check a different box for a different connection. And (3.) if the situation were reversed, they would have started charging me the larger amount, which I similarly wouldn't have expected, as I never ordered the phone company to modify my connection -- another reason I never gave it a thought.
In other words, as I said, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be keenly aware of the different costs of the two connections, since there is certainly a zillion people who don't know the first thing about any of that -- they just use it.
And without regard to any of what I just mentioned, it still seems like any time a citizen is known to have overpaid -- that money is due back to them, either as a refund or credit towards future service.
That's my question: Why would this not be deserving of a refund or credit?

so, how was webtv supposed to know your ISP installed broadband/dsl? unless you tell them you have broadband/dsl, they don't know.