Service provision in the age of the Internet

I have just started the ball rolling on transferring my mobile phone to another phone company.

I've been with the current company since the early 1990s, and went to them because of aggressive, rude, and, frankly, discriminatory behaviour (breached the physical features attribute of my state's anti-discrimination act) from another phone company. The second phone company has not been perfect: their service staff have, at times, been just as aggressive, rude, and discriminatory at times as the first - to the extent that, since around the late 200os, I've refused to accept any phone calls from them, and will not make calls to them. 

Since the advent of the so-called "smart" phone, most service companies have been shifting to a solely online or phone call "service" model. However, that has, in actual practice, problems, including: 

• the use of phone for contact is NOT convenient to all people - for instance, there are people who have hearing issues, and many phone contact services / people may not use or even know about the relay service;
• services offered by websites are subject to several limitations, such as:

• poor design - especially if the underlying assumptions are poor; 
• assumptions that reduce security - such as connecting multiple accounts "for convenience", which is incredibly dangerous and NOT recommended or supported in any way by experts; 
• limited or flawed offerings as a result of limited thinking (such as not conceiving of people being given phones as gifts, or of people NOT having so-called "smart" phones); 
• assumptions that are discriminatory - which is a particular problem in the development of machine learning (aka "artificial intelligence"); 
• restrictions to "save costs", such as being unable to order a SIM via the website for a phone that my partner gave me as a gift - which started this whole ball rolling.
  

Eventually, the only way I could raise the issue was by lodging an internal complaint - I don't currently have a so-called "smart" phone so can't use their app (although that keeps being suggested in their replies!), there is no email or online complaint form, I refuse to ring them because of their past behaviour, and pandemic restrictions have meant that, until recently, I couldn't visit any of their outlets.

Eventually, it turned out that the only ways I could order a new SIM for my gifted phone was to either ring them, or go in to an outlet. In accordance with the pandemic management measures (WHICH I COMPLETELY SUPPORT), I have to prove that I am double vaccinated: I'm not going to link my personal MyGov account to the check in app on my work phone (for obvious personal security reasons), but they would accept a print out of my vaccination certificate.

I also had to provide 100 points of identification (ID). 

This was starting to go beyond annoying to aggravating, but: 

• I need to be able to update to a less ancient phone model for when the older network I'm currently on is switched off, 
• it opens the possibility of using 5G for my internet connection in the future, and 
• most important of all, I'll be able to show the "blue tick" rather than my certificate.  

(And those people who are FBU [bewildered, if you don't want to click on the link] by my not having a so-called "smart" phone will not have to grow and expand their thinking because I'll be as compliant with fads and fashions as them [well . . . almost - I'm still not going to do much more than phone calls and text messages . . . although I do like the cameras in the current and recent smartphones {darn - forgot the so-called} ] ). 

The phone company I was with then asked me to confirm that they could close the case. I did so . . . THREE TIMES, thus far. 

At this point, the whole exercise moved way beyond annoying and aggravating to downright offensive. 

Now, the service staff have provided acceptable responses to my questions (except for an offered "justification" of the demand for 100 points of ID [which is in excess of what the government authorities require] that was lacking in credibility, IMO), and I had decided to go in to one of their outlets - they may have needed a little prompting, which I am sure was because I was NOT following the playbook of being a sheeple, but they adapted and managed the complaint to my eventual satisfaction . . . until they were let down by what is probably a glitch in their system, and in consequence I started looking around at other options. 

The company I had left in the early 90s was still around, and I had considered shifting back to them a couple of times over the subsequent decades (mainly because of good attitudes by their face-to-face service staff), but they were slow to appreciate, in my recent enquiry, that I wouldn't ring anyone unless I had assurances that I would not be discriminated against over the phone - and when they did eventually reply, the reply emphasised that I would have to prove that discrimination had occurred before they would even consider doing anything. 

If I go to the trouble of doing so, which is easy enough to do, I'm not going to muck around with the internal complaints provisions of such companies: I'm going straight to a lawyer or the anti-discrimination authority - or both. (Around a decade ago, when I last went through this sort of exercise, one of the companies I contacted [which no longer exists] said they couldn't guarantee discrimination wouldn't occur, and I had to point out to them that there are laws against discrimination.) 

I have, however, through the assistance of my friends, found two other companies, and have started transferring my phone account to one - I've ordered a new SIM for starters. 

Interestingly, I didn't have to go through the 100 points of ID rubbish. 

Why? Probably because I was dealing with a younger company created and staffed by people who 

(a) didn't see the Internet as a massive set of boogey-people; and 

(b) had enough brains to realise that, if I have a credit card or account at a reputable bank, I already have done the 100 points of ID thing. 

Older companies created in the pre-Internet era, and headed by dinosaurs of my vintage, mostly "think" - wrongly - that being tougher is better. 

It's not. 

It's just incompetent to the point of stupidity.

It may play out well with similarly incompetent IPOCs, but:

(i) it misses the real security issues; 

(ii) it creates the potential for discrimination or failures on inclusivity as a result of the limited life experiences / thinking of dinosaurs of my vintage; and 

(iii) it puts off existing and potential customers - especially younger ones, who are the future of ALL companies. 

It also shows flawed ability to think clearly (see here). 

I had something similar with my former superannuation company. They wanted witnessed declarations etc for all manner of minor issues (and allowed third parties to request changes to my account details), whereas the new super company is one of the newer thinking companies I like, who use the required forms of checking ID and don't ramp it up to 100 points or lots of other onerous restrictions out of an incompetent opinion that such is somehow better - they just stick to the requirements that government authorities require (which do validly include 100 points of ID in some circumstances). 

Incidentally, the new super company is Cruelty Free Super, website https://www.crueltyfreesuper.com.au/ - I am very pleased with all my interactions thus far, and recommend them. 

I'm not going to identify and recommend my new phone company yet - I'm pleased with the interactions thus far, but haven't actually used their service yet. If I do find them good enough, I'll come back here and give them a free plug. 

In the meantime, the dinosaurs who think they're being in any way admirable by being tough and restrictive on ID while missing important security matters and enabling discrimination need to realise that they are killing the future of their company. 

(And, incidentally, insisting on the use of snail mail is a very obvious and deliberate attempt, IMO, to prevent complaints.)