Update: Stripe is holding over $400k of mine with no explanation [resolved]

It's starting to seem like for too many companies, resolving public complaints has become a line item in the marketing budget.

edit: I genuinely do not get why it took Twitter referral in my case either ( it was a technical matter of moving one phone number from carrier to another, but do they have their 'A team' for social media only?). Well, did. No idea what Twitter looks like now.

Isn't calling them by phone, as if you're still stuck in the 1950s, like showing up at the back door at a restaurant and wondering why you weren't greeted by the host and seated promptly? Maybe the surly dishwasher will eventually notice you standing there, but why would their 'A team' be there waiting for you?

I am not sure you should equate me signing up for a 3rd party broker not only accepted, but a given. I personally do not believe it is old fashioned to have your business reachable by phone, when things go wrong ( in fact, I am not sure how Google and others have been able to get away with it so far ).

In other words, it is nice that T-Mobile extends their online presence to accommodate social media, but they may want to stick to their core strengths, because this is what I actually pay them for.

In your restaurant example, I go to a restaurant and I am greeted by a pimp, who happens to know Maître d' and can get you a good seat as a result. This is ok for some and I accept some people choose this as their default option. I like to go the actual restaurant ( T-mobile webpage or their call center ).

<< why would their 'A team' be there waiting for you?

Because I am a paying customer. That is why.

You can reach them by phone, but it's not the way things are commonly done, so you're going to get suboptimal results. You can also mail them a letter (the snail mail kind), but I expect you'll receive even poorer results than by phone doing so given that it is even less common to conduct business by mail. For better or worse there is only so much time in the day so you have to focus on what works for the 90% common case and just try your best for the remaining 10%.

> Because I am a paying customer. That is why.

You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support, else you would not be a paying customer anymore when they failed to provide what you thought you were paying for. What is in it for them to provide you something that you're not paying for?

I did, eventually, and I am voicing my discontent over having to do so.

<< You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support,

I received some support ( as flawed as it was, which reflects poorly on the company ) and that customer service number exists, therefore phone support exists and therefore I ,also apparently, pay for phone support. In other words, I think your argument is flawed.

That said, I think you are wrong in a much grander sense.

The question is not whether I pay for non-existent support. The question is why we allow oligopolies to run amok, because I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective, where CEOs are only focused on 'how to squeeze out more out of this rock' with the solution being: "I know. We will let them complain online and use that as our call center. Think of the savings." and NOT "How can we make our service better so that customers don't leave for greener pastures?".

That is the question.

My misunderstanding. So, in that case, you got what you think you are paying for and are clearly happy with what you got in return for your money as you continue to pay for it going forward. What's your concern again?

> I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective

Perhaps there aren't more options because you're too price sensitive? I'll give you all the top quality telephone support you could ever want for $10,000,000 per year, but I strongly suspect already that your answer is "no thanks". If I had to offer you phone support at the same price as T-Mobile it would be unquestionably worse, not having the economies of scale they have.

Since you are clearly happy with the product they offer, at least given the price they offer it at, how could any other options rise up? Anyone smaller trying to offer an alternative would have to charge more just to provide the same level of support, and a lot more to provide better support. Are you getting out your wallet to see that happen or is this one of those fake rants that "actions speak louder than words" was coined for?

I will admit I am mildly concerned I am being willfully misunderstood, which goes against the spirit of HN conversations. I would not characterize me as happy. My issue was resolved, but that issue explicitly could and should have been resolved earlier ( as it clearly could have been ) without the need to of intermediaries in the form of Twitter. And what happens to all those poor folks, who were banned from Twitter? They can't get 'good' support now, because T-Mobile is saving a few bucks? How is that even in the realm of being acceptable business practice?

<< Since you are clearly happy with the product they offer,

It is a stretch and it goes back to my lack of options "rant" above that include oligopoly position in nearly every industry in US. If I had 20 providers to choose from, somehow I do not think we would have this conversation. Instead, I get to choose, who will piss me off the least. That is not happy. That is merely not sufficiently angry yet.

<< "no thanks"

You are right. The price is ridiculous for an individual and most businesses.

<< If I had to offer you phone support at the same price as T-Mobile it would be unquestionably worse, not having the economies of scale they have.

Not necessarily. Virtual providers do exist ( and they don't seem to be doing badly ), but they happen to be running on the same network as the existing oligopolies giving the illusion of choice, which only hides the real issue here.

<< Anyone smaller trying to offer an alternative would have to charge more just to provide the same level of support, and a lot more to provide better support.

Maybe? I certainly had no way to test that proposition. Ever since I was a little boy, there were only a handful of telecoms for some unfathomable reason.

<< Perhaps there aren't more options because you're too price sensitive?

Maybe? What price range are you talking about specifically though? $100 for two lines with some silly 2gb cap? I frankly pay too much as it is compared to similar services in EU ( I can't readily compare to India or China, but I suspect those prices are even lower there ). If I am sensitive to price, it is because I like to get value for the money spent.

It would be irrational to pay for a service you are unhappy with. Perhaps you mean you are are "unhappy" in the same way that one is "unhappy" to have a $5 BigMac over a $50 steak? Which is to say that the BigMac is good for the price, even if not the best food imaginable.

> If I had 20 providers to choose from, somehow I do not think we would have this conversation.

Just about anyone (with reasonable knowhow) can provide you phone support. If there are fewer than 20 people out there willing to do that for you, I'd be flabbergasted. But they won't work for free, and probably not even for cheap. You've no doubt chosen the bargain basement option provided by T-Mobile because you find it balances the best value for the money. It's not great service, but it is cheap service. It's the $5 BigMac, even if you are really craving $50 steak, but don't want to spend $50 on a meal.

> Ever since I was a little boy, there were only a handful of telecoms for some unfathomable reason.

We seem to be flailing around here a lot, but it was made clear to me in the last comment that we're talking about the phone support being paid for. Phone support does not have to work directly for the telecom to interface with the telecom. They can talk to you to find out the problem and then do whatever it takes to get the job done with the carrier afterwards.

How much are you actually willing to pay for that, though? It seems the answer is not much. So why would competition rise up to make no money?

Let's take that further: Why aren't you offering this service to others? Because you realize you won't make any money?

Hmm. No, but at least now I can understand the perspective you seem to be speaking from, which partially explains the disconnect between how we perceive the world. You seem to think I talk about 'hardware support', whereas I am talking something T-Mobile is taking money for ( and that includes.. you know, connecting my call to people I call, routing text messages and data where they belong and respond to appropriate customer queries ). I would like to point out that 'moving number from one provider to the other' shouldn't even need to qualify as customer service, but onboarding, which the company should be doing everything to make sure is as seamless as possible.

I am "unhappy" because my "choice" in the matter of choosing a provider is limited to 3 major competitors in US. I provide myself with the 'support' you seem to suggest. This is explicitly not what we talked about or even a reasonable interpretation of my original complaint. I am 'unhappy', because I buy Big Mac at McDonalds, but upon purchase I am told to go that other store across the street to complete the purchase. How is that reasonable?

<< it was made clear to me in the last comment that we're talking about the phone support being paid for.

Are we? I am not even being difficult here. How is transferring number from one provider to another count as somehow separate 'phone support' and not just some basic initial setup?

<< Why aren't you offering this service to others?

Because when I sell Big Macs, I do not dare to tell people that pay me to go to the store across the street for self-assembly or help with Big Mac assembly. Like fuck man. I sincerely hope you are trolling me now and I am falling for it, because the alternative is that people have been actually convinced that this is an acceptable state of affairs.

edit:

<< How much are you actually willing to pay for that, though?

I already am. That is the point. I purchased a Big Mac and not separate bun combo with an asterisk stating some assembly required. I do not understand how this is somehow not a clear concept.

edit2: In fact, I got a Big Mac with a contract that includes a phone number to call when I need McDonald's help dealing with that Big Mac.

edit3:

<< even if you are really craving $50 steak, but don't want to spend $50 on a meal.

I feel obligated to ask now. What, exactly, is steak in this analogy?

edit4:

You actually got me riled up. Impressive.

From your perspective, should all customer inquiries be outsourced to social media to save businesses some dough?

"Should" requires applying emotion and you cannot participate in a good faith discussion if you bring in emotions.

All we can discuss is what is. If what you are trying to ask is: "Do some businesses only accept inquiries by social media?" I don't know for sure, but expect it happens. I know for certain that there are businesses which do not accept phone calls. There are even more businesses that do not accept inquiries by telegraph. Do any businesses accept inquiries by telegraph?

Like I said, businesses will put the most effort into accommodating the majority of customers where they are found. If that's social media, then social media is where the most effort will be made. Indeed, it stands to reason that a business that is primarily in the business of providing internet service for pocket computers used to access social media will find most of their customers congregating on social media. Other businesses might find that the customers are most likely to come in person. A retirement community might even find that the phone is where the people are. Certainly there is no universal medium here. Each business will be different.

That doesn't mean there won't be some best effort attempts to support customers on the fringes, but there is only so much time in the day and if you lose the customers on the fringes... Oh well? You will never win them all anyway.

You are wrong about "should", because the word can and does describe non-emotional states ( not everything is deterministic and requires approximator like should ), but your point about good faith discussion is well taken. In fact, I think I should apologize here. There was no rational reason to be bent out of shape over this. Your argument is solid on the surface assuming what you write is taken at face value.

As a result, I took your advice and took myself away from the keyboard for a little while.

As I considered other things, I realized that you are still not correct despite being instinctively right about the business in general ( it goes where the money is ). You used the example of telegraph and I realized that what is wrong with the argument. Papyrus is older than telegraph and yet it is still used to deliver important messages ( like, say, warrants, summons, complaints ) suggesting it is not a question of age, but of utility. I posit that phone is in the same category as paper, because despite existence of email, telegram, signal, video chats, it has replaced telegraph, but nothing replaced phone yet in terms of barebones connectivity standard(s) that can be used across the globe. Unless we consider mobile phones a different animal, which would not be an unreasonable argument to make.

At end the end of the day, if I need to make a call to the old country and various apps don't work for one reason or another ( not everyone uses - or even can or wants to use - w/e app you use or maybe version is off or multiple other reasons ), calling is the way to go.

<< That doesn't mean there won't be some best effort attempts to support customers on the fringes,

I might accept calling is not default, but calling it a fringe might be mischaracterizing things a tad bit ( unless you have some evidence to prove, calls are indeed a fringe channel ).

Questions of "how should a company behave?" can only be answered by one's feelings, and feelings require emotions to be formed. There are no rules of business encoded into the universe. Business itself is merely a human construct.

> At end the end of the day, if I need to make a call to the old country and various apps don't work for one reason or another

The modern phone system is built on apps, so if apps are not working for one reason or another the app you call a phone isn't going to work anyway. Long gone are the days of an operator physically connecting copper wires between two locations. The phone system you seem to be imagining no longer exists outside of museums.

> Papyrus is older than telegraph and yet it is still used to deliver important messages

And like I said in another comment, if you used papyrus to request support from your telecom operator, I expect you would receive even worse support than by phone. It's not where they are going to focus their energy because papyrus isn't where the community of customers live. I imagine they would put in some effort to accommodate you, but with only so much time in the day it will pale in comparison to where they put their focus.

> unless you have some evidence to prove, calls are indeed a fringe channel

Like I said, it depends on the business. The phone is unquestionably the primary channel of communication for some businesses when the community of customers primarily live by phone. Other businesses, particularly those close to government, do rely on papyrus as their primary channel of communication. And other businesses see physical presence as their primary channel. Going back to the restaurant, you're going to receive better service walking in the door than you will by phone. No doubt there will be a best effort to provide good service over the phone as well, but the customer who walks in the door is going to get the "A team".

The business of which we speak here is mostly in the business of connecting one's pocket computer to social media, so social media is quite expectedly where the community primarily lives. That doesn't mean they won't put a best effort into other communication channels, but if you want the "A team", you will reasonably go where the people are. Same as with every business.

If that is the case, then everything is emotional. If everything is emotional, in practical sense, designation of 'emotional' does not carry using informational value. It is like calling everything racist.

<< At end the end of the day, if I need to make a call to the old country and various apps don't work for one reason or another >> The modern phone system is built on apps, so if apps are not working for one reason or another the app you call a phone isn't going to work anyway. Long gone are the days of an operator physically connecting copper wires between two locations. The phone system you seem to be imagining no longer exists outside of museums.

I would welcome some schooling on the matter. Do you have some additional insight/resources that could substantiate your claim? I do not exactly doubt you, but, just like with the underpinnings of US airlines, part of me sincerely doubts telecoms moved to, say, react framework to connect phonecalls. I might be wrong, but I would like some additional evidence of that.

<< And like I said in another comment, if you used papyrus to request support from your telecom operator, I expect you would receive even worse support than by phone. It's not where they are going to focus their energy because papyrus isn't where the community of customers live. I imagine they would put in some effort to accommodate you, but with only so much time in the day it will pale in comparison to where they put their focus.

I am not sure if you ever sent a complaint letter to a bank or similar regulated institution. I won't go into too many details, but, if anything, written letter gets a much closer scrutiny. It may be slower, but it does get results ( edit: speaking from experience ).

<< Like I said, it depends on the business.

I am willing to accept it as an argument.

For all practical purposes the state of the world is encoded into the universe. Relaying that state does not require emotion to carry into the message. If I exclaim 1+1=2, what emotion can you extract from that? The motivation for suggesting that 1+1=2 requires emotion to be present internally, but those emotions do not leak into the information presented.

> Do you have some additional insight/resources that could substantiate your claim?

I guess? https://www.history.com/news/rise-fall-telephone-switchboard...

I'm not sure what you're looking for, exactly.

> part of me sincerely doubts telecoms moved to, say, react framework to connect phonecalls.

If you use the phone app on your pocket computer, it very well could be using the React (React Native) framework. In the real world more likely it uses the OS's native APIs directly, but indeed React Native is just a thin layer above that anyway so the distinction is flimsy.

But yes, modern switching is also done in software. The phone is just another service that rides on the same network as all of these other services that we're talking about. Ultimately, what's really so different between Twitter and a phone call other than the exact bit arrangement that goes down the wire?

> I am not sure if you ever sent a complaint letter to a bank or similar regulated institution.

We are talking about support, not complaint. Those are very different letters.

> but, if anything, written letter gets a much closer scrutiny.

Particularly when the government is involved, no question. We already established earlier that the community that is government tends to live by paper. Once again, the "A team" lives where the people are. Even if Twitter is the best place for support, if you sent a complaint by Twitter it would be more likely be ignored because that's not where the regulators live. Like the recurring theme continues to tell, the most effort is put into where the people are...