Tuesday, December 18, 2007 |
Can T-Mobile Apologize?
I received another email from T-Mobile. This time I'm not even entitled to have the name of the person it came from.Return-path: Envelope-to: @bibleboy.org Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:08:00 -0500 Received: from mail by mojo.iad.bobkmertz.com with spam-scanned (Exim 4.54) id 1J4d6t-0000yv-D7 for bob@bibleboy.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:08:00 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on mojo.iad.bobkmertz.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_30_40, HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URI_NOVOWEL autolearn=no version=3.1.7 Received: from mail2.t-mobile.com ([206.29.162.144] helo=nxprdapirn04.t-mobile.com) by mojo.iad.bobkmertz.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.54) id 1J4d6t-0000ys-06 for @bibleboy.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:07:51 -0500 Received: from ([10.1.1.27]) by nxprdapirn04.t-mobile.com with ESMTP id 5502115.66632999; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:07:41 -0800 Received: from NXPRDVSMBX02.t-mobile.com ([10.133.32.33]) by WAPRDMSIMS05.t-mobile.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:07:41 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8417F.5A8DDE22" Disposition-Notification-To: "Executive Response (ECR)" Subject: RE: ***Ban No. 498717587- Assigned to Marianne - Twitterr***Confirmation Request Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:07:40 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ***Ban No. 498717587- Assigned to Marianne - Twitterr***Confirmation Request Thread-Index: AchA+8trGvRuXqhNShKzpk5KN0SungAg4McA References: From: "Executive Response (ECR)" To: "Bob K Mertz" <@bibleboy.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2007 14:07:41.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A83D3A0:01C8417F] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8417F.5A8DDE22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have since verified that this was a rumor. Please see the second email that was sent to you yesterday. Thank you,=20 ________________________________ From: Bob K Mertz [mailto:@bibleboy.org]=20 Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:26 PM To: Executive Response (ECR) Subject: Re: ***Ban No. 498717587- Assigned to Marianne - Twitterr***Confirmation Request Marianne,=20 Could you please explain to me why you previously emailed me that T-Mobile was blocking the Twitter service? The following email is signed with your very name. I can not understand this. To me this is an annoying example of a company that was once highly focused on their customers and good business practices losing touch with what matters. Minus the possibility that T-Mobile gave kick backs to many, including Twitter (which I highly doubt because Twitter has shown lots of responsibility and, therefore, have my trust), the "rumors" that T-Mobile was blocking Twitter were actually started inside of T-Mobile and were spread not only via Customer Service but also via the Office of the President. Up until now, everytime I contacted T-Mobile with an issue, they went out of their way to apologize for any inconveince that I at experienced. Now that we come to this issue of a huge failure of communication on T-Mobile's part that affected hundreds (maybe thousands) of customers and their response is to cleverly word emails to conceal the truth. While some emails infer that they made a mistake, they show absolutely no remorse for giving such blatantly incorrect information. The majority of T-Mobile's customers are not with T-Mobile because they have the best coverage but because they have the best customer service and could always trust what they were told by the company. Going forward I have to now question the reliability of the information that T-Mobile provides to me because if, in a matter as trival as this, you can't get their honest response and apology then when the matter becomes an issue much larger you certainly will not be able to rely on the answer they give you. Another huge issue in this is a display of capability. While this issue is not "Net Neutrality" per se, there was a blatant display of "we can keep you from doing what you want because it's our network" attitude which is, in fact, a violation of the spirit of neutrality. Coming from a company that has signed on with Google's Android to provide "Open Platforms", the attitude is very conflicting. While it may be true that T-Mobile did not filter SMS messages to Twitter, the executive office displayed their lack of concern of preserving customers' ability to access the information they want. I have personally loved T-Mobile up until now and I have stood up for them many times because I beleived in them as a company. I've requested information from T-Mobile multiple times to give them an opportunity to apologize because I want to continue to believe in the company but T-Mobile is unwilling to give me, or any other customer, that sense of security and that hurts. This is the type of attitude that I would expect from AT&T or Verizon but not the #4 carrier that is trying their best to gain their customers' support. I, for one, and very dissapointed in T-Mobile and, while this may not make me cancel my contract, it certainly will make me consider what I do when my contract is up. Labels: net neutrality, sms, tmo-vs-twit, tmobile, twitter (C)2003-2008, Bob K Mertz - Some Rights Reserved |
