Why exactly did a telecom company need SSNs anyway?
Edited to add, this was a rhetorical question and more a comment on the awful series of systems in the USA that leads a SSN to be used by telecom companies.
Nowadays they offer financing for devices. But even in the past it was required. They would determine the maximum number of lines you had available, and if there were any deposits to open new lines of service. Even before phone financing, those phone contracts came with hundreds of dollars of phone discounts at time of purchase and had hundreds of dollars worth of early termination fees and they want to make sure their customers had a good chance of paying if they left.
Most people get suckered into signing a contract and using a “postpaid” plan, where you get the service for a month and then pay for it. That requires a credit check and credit reporting, since you get the service before payment. You don’t have to give out your SSN if you sign up for “prepaid” cell phone plans, which offer less discounts and benefits but are generally cheaper for the service they provide. The only catch is you pay for the month before you use it, but this makes canceling as easy as stopping payment.
I’m on a prepaid plan, and got in on a really good deal. They were offering $25/month off indefinitely for signing up for auto-pay (Basically 35% off, lol). It made the plan cheaper and better than most of their monthly plans. I’m happy to know it also saved me from giving out my SSN.
The main carriers offer prepaid plans, and there is no postpaid plan that doesn’t throttle speeds after you go over a certain amount when the towers a busy.
The MVNOs throttle and deprioritise in high traffic times too.
Also, throttling at 30GB is a lot
Different than at 300GB which is what I went from on Visible to Verizon (visible is Verizon’s prepaid service, and it still worked like an MVNO by slowing down during the day and rush hour while Verizon clicked along streaming 4K)
I think it’s related maybe to some anti terrorism law? In certain EU countries for example it’s impossible to get an anonymous SIM due to some anti terrorism legislation. SSNs are the only legal identification I guess?
This is a random guess off the top of my head. IANAL or know anything specific on US law.
I think this miscommunication is more on you for taking it as an attack towards yourself when it was pretty clearly suspicious towards at&t, not you. In the future, I suggest trying to read things as charitably as possible. It will make forums a much more pleasant place if you don’t immediately assume aggression based on pretty innocuous words.
I didn’t see it as an attack. I saw it as very poor communication. “Also” would have worked way better as it would have been a “yes, and” instead of a literal “but.” I’m all about charitable readings. That’s why I didn’t attack them but pointed out their choice in wording. It was, as pointed out, snarky, not defensive.
Why exactly did a telecom company need SSNs anyway?
Edited to add, this was a rhetorical question and more a comment on the awful series of systems in the USA that leads a SSN to be used by telecom companies.
To collaborate more effectively with the NSA and CIA.
Oh, so that explains where the cocaine comes from.
Credit checks.
Nowadays they offer financing for devices. But even in the past it was required. They would determine the maximum number of lines you had available, and if there were any deposits to open new lines of service. Even before phone financing, those phone contracts came with hundreds of dollars of phone discounts at time of purchase and had hundreds of dollars worth of early termination fees and they want to make sure their customers had a good chance of paying if they left.
Most people get suckered into signing a contract and using a “postpaid” plan, where you get the service for a month and then pay for it. That requires a credit check and credit reporting, since you get the service before payment. You don’t have to give out your SSN if you sign up for “prepaid” cell phone plans, which offer less discounts and benefits but are generally cheaper for the service they provide. The only catch is you pay for the month before you use it, but this makes canceling as easy as stopping payment.
I’m on a prepaid plan, and got in on a really good deal. They were offering $25/month off indefinitely for signing up for auto-pay (Basically 35% off, lol). It made the plan cheaper and better than most of their monthly plans. I’m happy to know it also saved me from giving out my SSN.
Problem is all prepaid plans are MVNOs that throttle speeds
The main carriers offer prepaid plans, and there is no postpaid plan that doesn’t throttle speeds after you go over a certain amount when the towers a busy.
The MVNOs throttle and deprioritise in high traffic times too.
Also, throttling at 30GB is a lot Different than at 300GB which is what I went from on Visible to Verizon (visible is Verizon’s prepaid service, and it still worked like an MVNO by slowing down during the day and rush hour while Verizon clicked along streaming 4K)
Antifraud
I think it’s related maybe to some anti terrorism law? In certain EU countries for example it’s impossible to get an anonymous SIM due to some anti terrorism legislation. SSNs are the only legal identification I guess?
This is a random guess off the top of my head. IANAL or know anything specific on US law.
SSN isn’t supposed to be used as a form of ID. Even says so on an SS card.
Yeah, about that.
What’s IANAL? Is it some new Apple product I don’t know about yet?
I am not a lawyer*
No, no:
iMac
iBook
iPhone
iAnal
It’s a joke, I guess.
To run credit checks and be in compliance with anti-terrorism regulations.
But there’s no need to store them in what I assume to be plain text, this is negligence
I don’t remember that being part of the question I was answering. The question was why, not how. So the “But” seems confrontational in this context.
Is it dumb that they might have been in plain text or something close enough to it that it didn’t matter: of course. But that wasn’t the question.
Alright Mr snarky pants calm down, I was adding onto your comment not attacking it
That’s fine. In the future I’d start with “Also” instead of “But.” It completely changes the tone.
“Also” doesn’t make sense in context.
I think this miscommunication is more on you for taking it as an attack towards yourself when it was pretty clearly suspicious towards at&t, not you. In the future, I suggest trying to read things as charitably as possible. It will make forums a much more pleasant place if you don’t immediately assume aggression based on pretty innocuous words.
I didn’t see it as an attack. I saw it as very poor communication. “Also” would have worked way better as it would have been a “yes, and” instead of a literal “but.” I’m all about charitable readings. That’s why I didn’t attack them but pointed out their choice in wording. It was, as pointed out, snarky, not defensive.
Be honest. Which word actually makes sense?
It could be worse, companies could be asking for phones and then treating them as a SSN. Oh wait…